Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004--H.R. 1588 and oversight of previously authorized programs before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, first session, full committee hearings on authorization and oversight, hearings held February 5, 12, 26, 27, March 4, 12, 12, 13, 20, 2003, April 1, May 1 and 2, 2003"

See other formats


[H.A.S.C.  No.  108-2] 


Y  4.AR  5/2  A:2003-2004/2 

National  Defense  Authorization 

ON 

NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT 
FOR  FISCAL  YEAR  2004— H.R.  1588 

AND 

OVERSIGHT  OF  PREVIOUSLY  AUTHORIZED 
PROGRAMS 

BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  ARMED  SERVICES 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 
ONE  HUNDRED  EIGHTH  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 


FULL  COMMITTEE  HEARINGS 

ON 

AUTHORIZATION  AND  OVERSIGHT 


HEARINGS  HELD 

FEBRUARY  5,  12,  26,  27,  MARCH  4,  12,  12,  13,  20,  2003 

APRIL  1,  MAY  1,  AND  2,  2003 


SUPERmTEWUENT  OF  DO 

DEPOSITOR. 


AUG  2  6  2004 

i 


BOSTON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 
GOVERNMENT  DOCUMENTS  DEPT 


[H.A.S.C.  No.  108-2] 


HEARINGS 

ON 

NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT 
FOR  FISCAL  YEAR  2004— H.R.  1588 

AND 

OVERSIGHT  OF  PREVIOUSLY  AUTHORIZED 
PROGRAMS 

BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  ARMED  SERVICES 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 
ONE  HUNDRED  EIGHTH  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 


FULL  COMMITTEE  HEARINGS 

ON 

AUTHORIZATION  AND  OVERSIGHT 


HEARINGS  HELD 

FEBRUARY  5,  12,  26,  27,  MARCH  4,  12,  12,  13,  20,  2003 

APRIL  1,  MAY  1,  AND  2,  2003 


U.S.   GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
87-332  WASHINGTON   :  2004 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Internet:  bookstore.gpo.gov     Phone:  toll  free  (866)  512-1800;  DC  area  (202)  512-1800 

Fax:  (202)  512-2250     Mail:  Stop  SSOP,  Washington,  DC  20402-0001 


HOUSE  COMMITTEE  ON  ARMED  SERVICES 

One  Hundred  Eighth  Congress 

DUNCAN  HUNTER,  California,  Chairman 


CURT  WELDON,  Pennsylvania 

JOEL  HEFLEY,  Colorado 

JIM  SAXTON,  New  Jersey 

JOHN  M.  McHUGH,  New  York 

TERRY  EVERETT,  Alabama 

ROSCOE  G.  BARTLETT,  Maryland 

HOWARD  P.  "BUCK"  McKEON,  California 

MAC  THORNBERRY,  Texas 

JOHN  N.  HOSTETTLER,  Indiana 

WALTER  B.  JONES,  North  Carolina 

JIM  RYUN,  Kansas 

JIM  GIBBONS,  Nevada 

ROBIN  HAYES,  North  CaroUna 

HEATHER  WILSON,  New  Mexico 

KEN  CALVERT,  California 

ROB  SIMMONS,  Connecticut 

JO  ANN  DAVIS,  Virginia 

ED  SCHROCK,  Virginia 

W.  TODD  AKIN,  Missouri 

J.  RANDY  FORBES,  Virginia 

JEFF  MILLER,  Florida 

JOE  WILSON,  South  Carolina 

T^RANK  A.  LoBIONDO,  New  Jersey 

TOM  COLE,  Oklahoma 

JEB  BRADLEY,  New  Hampshire 

ROB  BISHOP,  Utah 

MICHAEL  TURNER,  Ohio 

JOHN  KLINE,  Minnesota 

CANDICE  S.  MILLER,  Michigan 

PHIL  GINGREY,  Georgia 

MIKE  ROGERS,  Alabama 

TRENT  FRANKS,  Arizona 


IKE  SKELTON,  Missouri 
JOHN  SPRATT,  South  Carolina 
SOLOMON  P.  ORTIZ,  Texas 
LANE  EVANS,  Illinois 
GENE  TAYLOR,  Mississippi 
NEIL  ABERCROMBIE,  Hawaii 
MARTY  MEEHAN,  Massachusetts 
SILVESTRE  REYES,  Texas 
VIC  SNYDER,  Arkansas 
JIM  TURNER,  Texas 
ADAM  SMITH,  Washington 
LORETTA  SANCHEZ,  California 
MIKE  McINTYRE,  North  Carolina 
CIRO  D.  RODRIGUEZ,  Texas 
ELLEN  O.  TAUSCHER,  California 
ROBERT  A.  BRADY,  Pennsylvania 
BARON  P.  HILL,  Indiana 
JOHN  B.  LARSON,  Connecticut 
SUSAN  A.  DAVIS,  California 
JAMES  R.  LANGEVIN,  Rhode  Island 
STEVE  ISRAEL,  New  York 
RICK  LARSEN,  Washington 
JIM  COOPER,  Tennessee 
JIM  MARSHALL,  Georgia 
KENDRICK  B.  MEEK,  Florida 
MADELEINE  Z.  BORDALLO,  Guam 
RODNEY  ALEXANDER,  Louisiana 
TIM  RYAN,  Ohio 


Robert  S.  Rangel,  Staff  Director 

James  M.  Lariviere,  Professional  Staff  Member 

Justin  Bernier,  Research  Assistant 


(II) 


CONTENTS 


CHRONOLOGICAL  LIST  OF  HEARINGS 
2003 

Page 

Hearings: 

Wednesday,  February  5,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authoriza- 
tion Act— Secretary  of  Defense;  Chairman  of  the  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff; 
Under  Secretary  of  Defense  (Comptroller)  ■    •• ; 1 

Wednesday,  February  12,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authoriza- 
tion Act-^Secretary  of  the  Army;  Army  Chief  of  Staff • 121 

Wednesday  February  26,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authoriza- 
tion Act— Acting  Secretary  of  the  Navy;  Chief  of  Naval  Operations;  Com- 
mandant of  the  Marine  Corps  •••■••••• ■■•••• ; 235 

Thursday,  February  27,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authoriza- 
tion Act— Secretary  of  the  Air  Force;  Air  Force  Chief  of  Staff 371 

Tuesday,  March  4,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authorization 
Act— U.S.-Russian  Cooperative  Threat  Reduction  and  Nonproliferation  Pro- 
srams  509 

WednesdayrMarch  12,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authoriza- 
tion Act— Combatant  Commanders  of  U.S.  Special  Operations  Command, 
US  Southern  Command  and  U.S.  Joint  Forces  Command  675 

Wednesday,  March  12,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authoriza- 
tion Act— Combatant  Commanders  of  U.S.  Pacific  Command  and  U.S. 
Forces  Korea  v;::"; ■»""i .—•••:•—      °^^ 

Thursday,  March  13,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authorization 
Act— Combatant  Commanders  of  U.S.  Northern  Command  and  U.S.  Strate- 
gic Command  ••••••: ; :••      "^' 

Thursday,  March  20,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authorization 
Act— BalUstic  Missile  Defense  • :••  ••    1031 

Tuesday,  April  1,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authorization 
Act — Department  of  Defense  Acquisition  Programs  1157 

Thursday,  May  1,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authorization 
Act— The  Defense  Transformation  for  the  21st  Century  Act  1231 

Friday,  May  2,  2003,  Fiscal  Year  2004  National  Defense  Authorization  Act— 
The  Defense  Transformation  for  the  21st  Century  Act  1503 

Appendixes: 

Wednesday,  February  5,  2003  63 

Wednesday,  February  12,  2003  1^1 

Wednesday,  February  26,  2003  235 

Thursday,  February  27,  2003  437 

Tuesday,  March  4,  2003  55/ 

Wednesday,  March  12,  2003  717 

Wednesday,  March  12,  2003  o47 

Thursday,  March  13,  2003  9°{ 

Thursday,  March  20,  2003  10^1 

Tuesday,  April  1,  2003  1197 

Thursday,  May  1,  2003 l'^"^^ 


(III) 


IV 

Page 

Friday,  May  2,  2003 1551 


WEDNfESDAY,  FEBRUARY  5,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— SEC- 
RETARY OF  DEFENSE;  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  JOINT  CHIEFS  OF 
STAFF;  UNDER  SECRETARY  OF  DEFENSE  (COMPTROLLER) 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  1 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services  3 

WITNESSES 

Myers,  Gen.  Richard,  USAF,  Chairman,  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff  11 

Rumsfeld,  Hon.  Donald  H.,  Secretary,  U.S.  Department  of  Defense 4 

APPENDK 

Prepared  Statements: 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  67 

Myers,  Gen.  Richard 89 

Rumsfeld,  Hon.  Donald  H 76 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  72 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 
[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.] 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Abercrombie  113 

Mr.  Bartlett  114 

Ms.  Davis  (Susan) 116 

Mr.  McKeon 114 

Mr.  Miller  117 

Mr.  Reyes  115 

Ms.  Tauscher 115 


WEDNESDAY,  FEBRUARY  12,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT- 
SECRETARY  OF  THE  ARMY;  ARMY  CHIEF  OF  STAFF 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  121 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 122 

WITNESSES 

Shinseki,  Gen.  Erick  K,  Chief  of  Staff  on  the  Army  125 

White,  Hon.  Thomas  E.,  Secretary  of  the  Army 123 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  175 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  179 

White,  Hon.  Thomas  E.,  joint  with  General  Shinseki  183 


V 

Page 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 
[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.] 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Abercrombie  229 

Ms.  Davis  (Susan) 231 

Mr.  Cooper  233 

Mr.  Langevin 233 

Mr.  McHugh  228 

Mr.  Ortiz  227 

Mr.  Skelton  227 


WEDNESDAY,  FEBRUARY  26,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— ACT- 
ING SECRETARY  OF  THE  NAVY;  CHIEF  OF  NAVAL  OPERATIONS; 
COMMANDANT  OF  THE  MARINE  CORPS 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  235 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 236 

WITNESSES 

Clark,  Adm.  Vernon  E.,  Chief  of  Naval  Operations  239 

Hagee,  Gen.  Michael  W.,  Commandant  of  the  Marine  Corps  241 

Johnson,  Hon.  Hansford  T.,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Navy  237 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Clark,  Adm.  Vernon  E 307 

Hagee,  Gen.  Michael  W 336 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  281 

Johnson,  Hon.  Hansford  T 288 

Miller,  Hon.  Jeff,  a  Representative  from  Florida  287 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  285 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 
[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.] 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Abercrombie  366 

Mr.  Bradley  369 

Ms.  Davis  (Susan) 369 

Mr.  Gibbons 368 

Mr.  Ortiz  363 

Mr.  Reyes  368 

Mr.  Saxton 365 

Mr.  Taylor  366 


THURSDAY,  FEBRUARY  27,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT- 
SECRETARY  OF  THE  AIR  FORCE;  AIR  FORCE  CHIEF  OF  STAFF 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  371 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 373 


VI 

Page 

WITNESSES 

Jumper,  Gen.  John  P.,  Chief  of  Staff  of  the  Air  Force 381 

Roche,  Hon.  James  G.,  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  374 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  441 

Roche,  Hon.  James  G.  joint  with  Gen.  John  P.,  Jumper  449 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  446 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 
[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.] 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Bradley  506 

Mr.  Hunter  499 

Mr.  Meehan  507 

Mr.  Miller  504 

Mr.  Skelton  499 

Mr.  Smith  504 


TUESDAY,  MARCH  4,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— U.S.- 
RUSSIAN COOPERATIVE  THREAT  REDUCTION  AND  NON- 
PROLIFERATION  PROGRAMS 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  509 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services  510 

WITNESSES 

Brooks,  Ambassador  Linton,  Acting  Administrator,  National  Nuclear  Security 
Administration  515 

Christoff,  Joseph  A.,  Director,  International  Affairs  and  Trade  Team,  U.S. 

General  Accounting  Office  549 

Crouch,  Hon.  J.D.,  II,  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense  for  International  Secu- 
rity Policy  512 

DeSutter,  Hon.  Paula  A.,  Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  Bureau  of  Verification 

and  Compliance  517 

Steensma,  David  K.,  Deputy  Assistant  Inspector  General,  Auditing,  U.S.  De- 
partment of  Defense 547 

APPENDK 

Prepared  Statements: 

Brooks,  Ambassador  Linton 579 

Christoff,  Joseph  A 613 

Crouch,  Hon.  J.D.,  II  570 

DeSutter,  Hon.  Paula  A 590 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  561 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  567 

Steensma,  David  K 597 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Cooperative   Threat   Reduction   Program   Liquid   Propellant   Disposition 

Project  629 


VII 

Page 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Hunter  673 


WEDNESDAY,  MARCH  12,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— COM- 
BATANT COMMANDERS  OF  U.S.  SPECIAL  OPERATIONS  COMMAND, 
U.S.  SOUTHERN  COMMAND  AND  U.S.  JOINT  FORCES  COMMAND 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  675 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 676 

WITNESSES 

Giambastiani,  Adm.  E.P.,  USN,  Commander,  U.S.  Joint  Forces  Command  681 

Hill,  Gen.  James  T.,  USA,  Commander,  U.S.  Southern  Command  679 

Holland,  Gen.  Charles  R.,  USAF,  Commander,  U.S.  Special  Operations  Com- 
mand    678 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Giambastiani,  Adm.  E.P 778 

Hill,  Gen.  James  T 751 

Holland,  Gen.  Charles  R 728 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  721 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  725 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

MFP-11  Unfinanced  Requirements  ($  in  Millions)  chart  805 

MFP-11  MILCON  Unfinanced  Requirements  ($  in  Millions)  chart  806 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Abercrombie  811 

Mr.  Bradley  813 

Ms.  Davis  (Susan) 812 

Mr.  Forbes  811 

Mr.  Hayes  811 

Mr.  Miller  812 

Mr.  Ortiz  810 

Mr.  Skelton  809 


WEDNESDAY,  MARCH  12,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— COM- 
BATANT  COMMANDERS  OF  U.S.  PACIFIC  COMMAND  AND  U.S. 
FORCES  KOREA 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  815 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 816 

WITNESSES 

Fargo,  Adm.  Thomas  B.,  USN,  Commander,  U.S.  Pacific  Command  817 

LaPorte,  Gen.  Leon  J.,  USA,  Commander,  U.S.  Forces,  Korea  819 


VIII 

Page 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Fargo,  Adm.  Thomas  B 857 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan 851 

LaPorte,  Gen.  Leon  J 914 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  854 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.]  

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Ms.  Davis  (Susan) 945 

Mr.  Hunter  945 

Mr.  Miller  946 


THURSDAY,  MARCH  13,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— COM- 
BATANT COMMANDERS  OF  U.S.  NORTHERN  COMMAND  AND  U.S. 
STRATEGIC  COMMAND 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  947 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 948 

WITNESSES 

Eberhart,  Gen.  Ralph  E.,  USAF,  Commander,  U.S.  Northern  Command  949 

Ellis,  Adm.  James  O.,  Jr.,  USN,  Commander,  U.S.  Strategic  Command  951 

APPENDK 

Prepared  Statements: 

Eberhart,  Gen.  Ralph  E 1017 

Ellis,  Adm.  James  O.,  Jr 999 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  991 

Miller,  Hon.  Jeff,  a  Representative  from  Florida  998 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  995 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.]  

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Ms.  Davis  (Susan) 1029 

Mr.  Forbes  1029 

Mr.  Miller  1029 


THURSDAY,  MARCH  20,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT- 
BALLISTIC  MISSILE  DEFENSE 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  1031 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 1032 

WITNESSES 

Aldridge,  Hon.  E.C.  "Pete",  Jr.,  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Acquisitions, 

Technology  and  Logistics  1034 


IX 

Page 

Crouch,  Hon.  J.D.,  II,  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense  for  International  Secu- 
rity Policy  1037 

Christie,  Hon.  Thomas  P.,  Director,  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation,  Depart- 
ment of  Defense  1043 

Kadish,  Lt.  Gen.  Ronald  T.,  USAF,  Director,  Missile  Defense  Agency  1040 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Aldridge,  Hon.  E.C.  "Pete",  Jr 1083 

Christie,  Hon.  Thomas  P 1139 

Crouch,  Hon.  J.D.,  II  1087 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  1075 

Kadish,  Lt.  Gen.  Ronald  T 1102 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  1080 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 
[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.] 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Bartlett  1150 

Mrs.  Davis  (Jo  Ann)  1151 

Ms.  Davis  (Susan) 1153 

Mr.  Miller  1154 

Mr.  Spratt  1149 


TUESDAY,  APRIL  1,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT- 
DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  ACQUISITION  PROGRAMS 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  1157 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 1159 

WITNESSES 

Aldridge,  Hon.  E.C.  "Pete",  Jr.,  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Acquisitions, 
Technology  and  Logistics  1160 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Aldridge,  Hon.  E.C.  "Pete",  Jr 1211 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  1201 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  1208 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.]  

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Bishop  1229 

Mr.  Everett 1229 

Mr.  Ryan  1230 

Mr.  Wilson  1229 


THURSDAY,  MAY  1,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— THE 
DEFENSE  TRANSFORMATION  FOR  THE  2 1ST  CENTURY  ACT 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  1231 


X 

Page 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 1233 

WITNESSES 

Aldridge,  Hon.  E.G.  "Pete"  Jr.,  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Acquisition, 

Technology  and  Logistics  1244 

Chu,  Hon.  David  S.C.,  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  (Personnel  and  Readiness)  1245 
Hamage,  Bobby  L.,  Sr.,  National  President,  American  Federation  of  Govern- 
ment Employees,  AFL-GIO  1314 

Myers,  Gen.  Richard  B.,  USAF,  Chairman,  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff 1238 

Walker,  Hon.  David  M.,  Comptroller  General,  United  States  General  Account- 
ing Office  1313 

Wolfowitz,  Hon.  Paul  D.,  Deputy  Secretary  of  Defense  1236 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Chu,  Hon.  David  S.C 1348 

Cooper,  Hon.  Jim,  a  Representative  from  Tennessee  1356 

Hamage,  Bobby  L.,  Sr 1371 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  1339 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  1344 

Walker,  Hon.  David  M 1358 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

DOD's  Proposed  Acquisition  and  Reporting  Reforms  submitted  by  GAO  ...  1440 

Federal  Register,  Wednesday,  April  2,  2003,  Part  II  1416 

Testimony  of  G.  Jerry  Shaw,  General  Counsel,  Senior  Executives  Associa- 
tion on  The  Proposed  Defense  Transformation  for  the  21st  Century 

Act  of  2003  1409 

Transformation  Proposal  Legislative  Outreach  Tables 1449-1460 

Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Abercrombie  1469 

Mr.  Cooper  1490 

Mr.  Reyes  1472 

Mr.  Skelton  1463 

Dr.  Snyder  1489 

Mr.  Spratt  1467 

Ms.  Tauscher 1489 


FRroAY,  MAY  2,  2003 

FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATION  ACT— THE 
DEFENSE  TRANSFORMATION  FOR  THE  21ST  CENTURY  ACT 

STATEMENTS  PRESENTED  BY  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan,  a  Representative  from  California,  Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Armed  Services  1503 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike,  a  Representative  from  Missouri,  Ranking  Member,  Com- 
mittee on  Armed  Services 1504 

WITNESSES 

Chu,  Hon.  David  S.C,  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  (Personnel  and  Readiness)  1506 

Clark,  Adm.  Vernon  E.,  Chief  of  Naval  Operations  1508 

Korb,  Lawrence  J.,  Director  of  National  Security  Studies,  Council  of  Foreign 

Relations  1542 

Stroup,  Lt.  Gen.  Theodore  G.,  USA,  (Ret.),  Vice  President,  Education  Associa- 
tion of  the  United  States  Army 1543 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  Statements: 

Hunter,  Hon.  Duncan  1555 

Skelton,  Hon.  Ike  1558 


XI 

Page 

Documents  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

[There  were  no  Documents  submitted.] 
Questions  and  Answers  Submitted  for  the  Record: 

Mr.  Skelton  1565 


108th  congress 
1st  Session 


H.  R.  1588 


To  authorize  appropriations  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  military  activities  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Defense,  to  prescribe  military  personnel  strengths  for  fiscal  year  2004, 
and  for  other  purposes. 

IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

April  3,  2003 

Mr.  Hunter  (for  himself  and  Mr.  Skelton)  (both  by  request)  introduced  the 
following  bill;  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Armed  Services 


A  BILL 

To  authorize  appropriations  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  military  activities  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Defense,  to  prescribe  military  personnel  strengths  for  fiscal  year  2004, 
and  for  other  purposes. 
Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 

of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 

SECTION  1.  SHORT  TITLE. 

This  Act  may  be  cited  as  the  "National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal 
Year  2004". 

SEC.  2.  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

The  table  of  contents  for  this  Act  is  as  follows: 

Sec.  1.  Short  title. 

Sec.  2.  Table  of  contents. 

DIVISION  A— DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE  I— PROCUREMENT 
Subtitle  A — Authorization  of  Appropriations 

Army. 

Navy  and  Marine  Corps. 

Air  Force. 

Defense-wide  activities. 

Defense  Inspector  General. 

Defense  health  program. 

Chemical  agents  and  munitions  destruction. 

Subtitle  B — Multi-Year  Contract  Authorizations 

Sec.   111.  Multiyear  procurement  authority  for  Navy  programs. 

Sec.  112.  Amendment  to  multiyear  procurement  authority  for  C-130J  aircraft  for  the  Air  Force. 

TITLE  II— RESEARCH,  DEVELOPMENT,  TEST,  AND  EVALUATION 

Subtitle  A — Authorization  of  Appropriations 

Sec.  201.  Authorization  of  appropriations. 

Subtitle  B — Ballistic  Missile  Defense 

Sec.  211.  Renewal  of  authority  to  assist  local  communities  impacted  by  ballistic  missile  defense  system  test  bed. 

Subtitle  C— Other  Matters 

Sec.  221.  Rescind  the  prohibition  on  research  and  development  of  low-yield  nuclear  weapons. 

(XIII) 


Sec. 

101. 

Sec. 

102. 

Sec. 

103. 

Sec. 

104. 

Sec. 

105. 

Sec. 

106. 

Sec. 

107. 

XIV 

TITLE  III— OPERATION  AND  MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle  A — Authorization  of  Appropriations 

Sec.  301.  Operation  and  maintenance  funding. 

See.  302.  Working  capital  funds. 

Sec.  303.  Armed  Forces  Retirement  Home. 

Subtitle  B — Environmental  Provisions 

Sec.  311.  Clarify  definitions  of  salvage  facilities  and  salvage  services  to  include  environmental  responses  and 

related  equipment. 
Sec.  312.  Authorization  for  federal  participation  in  wetland  mitigation  banks. 

Sec.  313.   Provision  to  exempt  restoration  advisory  boards  from  the  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act. 
Sec.  314.   Repeal  of  military  equipment  and  infrastructure;  prevention  and  mitigation  of  corrosion. 

Subtitle  C — Workplace  and  Depot  Issues 

Sec.  321.  Repeal  of  time  limitation  on  exclusion  of  expenditures  on  contracting  for  depot-level  maintenance. 

Sec.  322.  Exception  to  competition  requirement  for  depot-level  maintenance  and  repair. 

Sec.  323.  Exclude  workloads  for  special  access  programs  from  limitations  on  the  performance  of  depot-level 
maintenance  of  materiel. 

Sec.  324.  Establishing  minimum  level  of  performance  of  depot-level  maintenance  of  materiel  by  federal  govern- 
ment personnel  or  at  a  government-owned  facility. 

Sec.  325.  Centers  of  industrial  and  technical  excellence:  extension  of  partnership  exemption. 

TITLE  IV— MILITARY  PERSONNEL  AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle  A — Active  Forces 

Sec.  401.  End  strengths  for  active  forces. 

Subtitle  B — Reserve  Forces 

Sec.  411.  End  strengths  for  Selected  Reserve. 

Sec.  412.  End  strengths  for  Reserves  on  active  duty  in  support  of  the  reserves. 

Sec.  413.  End  strengths  for  militarj'  technicians  (dual  status). 

Sec.  414.  Fiscal  year  2004  limitation  on  number  of  non-dual  status  technicians. 

TITLE  V— MILITARY  PERSONNEL  POLICY 

Subtitle  A — Officer  Personnel  Policy 

Sec.  501.  Repeal  of  prohibition  against  regular  Navy  officers  transferring  between  line  and  staff  corps  in  grades 

above  lieutenant  commander. 
Sec.  502.  Retention  of  officers  serving  in  health  professions  to  fulfill  active  duty  service  commitments  following 

promotion  non-selection. 
Sec.  503.  Requirement  of  exemplary  conduct. 

Subtitle  B — Reserve  Component  Management 

Sec.  511.  Ready  Reserve  training  requirement. 

Sec.  512.  Streamline  process  to  continue  officers  on  the  Reserve  active  status  list. 

Subtitle  C — Military  Education  and  Training 

Sec.  521.  Authority  for  the  Marine  Corps  University  to  award  the  degree  of  Master  of  Operational  Studies. 
Sec.  522.  Joint  professional  military  education. 

Subtitle  D — Administrative  Matters 

Sec.  531.  Enhancements  to  personnel  tempo  program. 
Sec.  532.  Consistent  time  in  service  retirement  criteria. 

Subtitle  E— Benefits 

Sec.  541.  Authority  to  transport  remains  of  retirees  who  die  in  military  treatment  facilities  outside  the  United 

States. 
Sec.  542.  Change  family  separation  housing  allowance  from  an  entitlement  to  a  discretionary  allowance. 
Sec.  543.  Payment  of  dependent  student  baggage  storage. 
Sec.  544.  Modification  of  prohibition  on  requirement  of  nonavailability  statement  or  preauthorization. 

Subtitle  F — Military  Justice  Matters 

Sec.  551.  Technical  amendment  to  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  concerning  the  offense  of  drunken  oper- 
ation of  a  vehicle,  aircraft,  or  vessel. 

Subtitle  G — Other  Matters 

Sec.  561.  Basic  training  requirement  for  certain  members  accessed  under  a  direct  entry  program. 
Sec.  562.  Alternate  initial  military  service  obligation  for  persons  accessed  under  direct  entry  program. 
Sec.  563.  Joint  warfighting  capabilities  funding. 

Sec.  564.  Reappointment  of  Chairman  and  Vice-Chairman  of  the  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff  during  national  emer- 
gency. 

TITLE  \1— COMPENSATION  AND  OTHER  PERSONNEL  BENEFITS 

Subtitle  A — Pay  and  Allowances 

Sec.  601.  Increase  in  basic  pay  for  fiscal  year  2004. 

Sec.  602.  Housing  allowance  for  each  married  partner  when  both  are  on  sea  duty  and  there  are  no  other  de- 
pendents. 

Sec.  603.  Amendment  to  basic  pay  for  certain  commissioned  officers  with  prior  service  as  an  enlisted  member 
or  warrant  officer. 


XV 

Subtitle  B — Bonuses  and  Special  and  Incentive  Pays 

Sec.  611.  Increase  maximum  amount  of  selective  reenlistment  bonus. 

Sec.  612.  Making  all  warrant  officers  eligible  for  accession  bonus  for  new  officers  in  critical  skills. 

Sec.  613.  Incentive  bonus:  lateral  conversion  bonus  for  converting  to  undermanned  military  occupational  spe- 
cialties. 

Sec.  614.  Extending  hostile  fire  and  imminent  danger  pay  to  Reserve  component  members  on  inactive  duty. 

Sec.  615.  Expanded  educational  assistance  authority  for  cadets  and  midshipmen  receiving  ROTC  scholarships. 

Sec.  616.  Notice  and  wait  provision  concerning  critical  skUls  retention  bonus. 

Sec.  617.  Expansion  of  overseas  tour  extension  incentive  program  benefits  to  officers. 

Sec.  618.  One-year  extension  of  certain  bonus  and  special  pay  authorities  for  Reserve  forces. 

Sec.  619.  One-year  extension  of  special  pay  and  bonus  authorities  for  nuclear  officers. 

Sec.  620.  One-year  extension  of  authorities  relating  to  payment  of  other  bonuses. 

Subtitle  C — Travel  and  Transportation  Allowances 

Sec.  621.  Shipment  of  a  privately  owned  motor  vehicle  within  the  continental  United  States. 

Subtitle  D— Other  Matters 

Sec.  631.  Permit  non-scholarship  senior  ROTC  sophomores  to  voluntarily  contract  and  receive  subsistence  al- 
lowance. 

TITLE  VII— HEALTH  CARE  PROVISIONS 

Sec.  701.  Revision  of  Department  of  Defense  Medicare  Eligible  Retiree  Health  Care  Fund  to  permit  more  accu- 
rate actuarial  valuations. 
Sec.  702.  Applicability  of  the  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act  to  the  Pharmacy  and  Therapeutics  Committee. 

TITLE  VIII— ACQUISITION  POLICY,  ACQUISITION  MANAGEMENT,  AND  RELATED  MATTERS 

Subtitle  A — Acquisition  Policy  and  Management 

Sec.  801.  Milestone  authorization  of  selected  defense  acquisition  programs. 

Sec.  802.  Contract  closeout. 

Sec.  803.  Clarification  of  requirement  to  buy  certain  articles  from  american  sources;  exceptions. 

Subtitle  B — Amendments  to  General  Contracting  Authorities,  Procedures,  and  Limitations 

Sec.  811.  Extend  use  of  the  Defense  Modernization  Account  for  life  cycle  cost  reduction  initiatives. 

Sec.  812.  Extension  and  clarification  of  authority  to  carry  out  certain  prototype  projects. 

Sec.  813.  Other  transaction  authority  for  modernizing  legacy  systems. 

Sec.  814.  Authority  for  DoD  intelligence  components  to  award  personal  service  contracts. 

Sec.  815.  Elimination  of  subcontract  notification  requirements. 

Sec.  816.  Exception  for  replacement  ball  bearings  and  roller  bearings  to  be  used  in  a  component  of  non-domestic 

origin. 

Sec.  817.  Industry  assignment  program. 

Subtitle  C — Acquisition-Related  Reports  and  Other  Matters 

Sec.  821.  Elimination  of  the  requirement  to  furnish  written  assurances  of  technical  data  conformity. 

Sec.  822.  Conversions  of  commercial  activities. 

Sec.  823.  Make  permanent  the  authority  to  enter  into  certain  personal  services  contracts. 

TITLE  DC— DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  ORGANIZATION  AND  MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle  A — Duties  and  Functions  of  Department  of  Defense  Officers 

Sec.  901.  Alternative  authority  for  acquisition  and  improvement  of  military  housing. 

Subtitle  B — Space  Activities 

Sec.  911.  Authorize  provision  of  space  surveillance  network  services  to  non-United  States  government  entities. 

Subtitle  C — Reports 

Sec.  921.  Repeal  of  various  reports  required  of  the  Department  of  Defense. 

Subtitle  D— Other  Matters 

Sec.  931.  Combatant  commands  initiatives  fund. 

Sec.  932.  Consolidating  the  financial  management  of  facilities  in  the  national  capital  region  and  designated  al- 
ternate sites. 

TITLE  X— GENERAL  PROVISIONS 

Subtitle  A — Financial  Matters 

Sec.   1001.  Payment  of  full  replacement  value  for  personal  property  claims. 

Sec.   1002.  Restoration  of  authority  to  enter  into  12-month  leases  at  any  time  during  the  fiscal  year. 

Sec.   1003.  Authority  to  provide  reimbursement  for  cellular  telephone  use. 

Sec.   1004    Reimbursement  for  Reserve  intelligence  support. 

Sec.   1005.   Increased  use  of  energy  cost  savings. 

Sec.  1006.  Allow  the  Department  of  Defense  to  capture  all  expired  funds  from  the  Military  Personnel  and  Oper- 
ation and  Maintenance  Appropriations  Accounts  for  use  in  the  Foreign  Currency  Fluctuations  Ac- 
count. 

Sec.  1007.  Funding  for  special  operations  Reserve  component  personnel  engaged  in  activities  relating  to  clear- 
ance of  landmines. 

Subtitle  B — Naval  Vessels  and  Shipyards 

Sec.   1011.  Reimbursement  to  the  Navy  for  assistance  provided  in  support  of  certain  ship  and  shipboard  equip- 
ment transfers. 
Sec.   1012.  Vessels  stricken  from  naval  vessel  register:  use  for  experimental  purposes. 
Sec.   1013.  Authorize  transfer  of  vessels  stricken  from  the  naval  vessel  register  for  use  as  artificial  reefs. 
Sec.   1014.  Repeal  of  the  Shipbuilding  Capability  Preservation  Agreement. 


XVI 

Subtitle  C — Counter-Drug  Activities 

Sec.   1021.  Extend  authority  for  use  of  counter  drug  activities. 

Sec.   1022.  Department  of  Defense  support  for  counter-terrorism  activities  in  the  Americas. 

Sec.   1023.  Expansion  and  extension  of  authority  to  provide  additional  support  for  counter-drug  activities. 

Subtitle  D — Other  Department  of  Defense  Provisions 

Sec.   1031.  Provision  of  living  quarters  for  certain  students. 

Sec.   1032.  Repeal  of  required  grade  for  defense  attache  in  France. 

Sec.  1033.  National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency. 

Subtitle  E— Other  Matters 

Sec.   1041.  Updating  definitions  in  title  10,  United  States  Code. 
Sec.   1042.  Improving  readiness  in  providing  firefighting  services. 

Sec.   1043.  Documents,  historical  artifacts,  and  obsolete  or  surplus  materiel:  loan,  donation,  or  exchange. 
Sec.   1044.  Authority  to  ensure  demilitarization  of  significant  military  equipment  formerly  owned  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Defense. 

TITLE  XI— DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  CIVILIAN  PERSONNEL 

Sec.   1101.  Position  vacancy  promotion  consideration  in  time  of  war  or  national  emergency. 

TITLE  XII— MATTERS  RELATING  TO  OTHER  NATIONS 

Subtitle  A — Matters  Related  to  Allies  and  Friendly  Foreign  Nations 

Sec.   1201.  Expansion  of  authority  to  conduct  the  Arctic  military  environmental  cooperation  program. 

Sec.   1202.  Authority  to  waive  domestic  source  or  content  requirements. 

Sec.  1203.  Authority  to  expend  funds  to  recognize  superior  noncombat  achievements  or  performance  by  mem- 
bers of  friendly  foreign  forces  and  other  foreign  nationals. 

Sec.   1204.  Administrative  support  and  services  for  foreign  liaison  officers. 

Sec.   1205.  George  C.  Marshall  European  Center  for  Security  Studies. 

Sec.   1206.  Restrictions  on  permanent  transfer  of  significant  military  equipment. 

Sec.  1207.  Amendment  to  authority  for  acceptance  by  Asia-Pacific  Center  for  Security  Studies  of  foreign  gifts 
and  donations. 

Sec.   1208.  Addition  of  individuals  authorized  to  receive  check  cashing  and  exchanges  of  foreign  currency. 

Sec.   1209.  Continuation  of  the  regional  counterterrorism  fellowship  program. 

Sec.   1210.  Logistics  support  for  fiiendly  nations. 

Subtitle  B— Other  Matters 

Sec.  1221.  Repeal  of  the  authorization  for  the  establishment  of  the  Center  for  the  Study  of  Chinese  Military 
Affairs. 

TITLE  XIII— HOMELAND  SECURITY 

Sec.   1301.  Sales  of  chemical  and  biological  defense  articles  and  services  to  state  and  local  governments. 

DIVISION  B— MILITARY  CONSTRUCTION  AUTHORIZATIONS 

Sec.  2001.  Short  title. 

TITLE  XXI— ARMY 

Sec.  2101.  Authorized  Army  construction  and  land  acquisition  projects. 

Sec.  2102.  Family  housing. 

Sec.  2103.  Improvements  to  military  family  housing  units. 

Sec.  2104.  Authorization  of  appropriations,  Ai-my. 

Sec.  2105.  Modification  to  carry  out  certain  fiscal  year  2002  projects. 

TITLE  XXII— NAVY 

Sec.  2201.  Authorized  Navy  construction  and  land  acquisition  projects. 

Sec.  2202.  Family  housing. 

Sec.  2203.  Improvements  to  military  family  housing  units. 

Sec.  2204.  Authorization  of  appropriations,  Navy. 

TITLE  XXIII— AIR  FORCE 

Sec.  2301.  Authorized  Air  Force  construction  and  land  acquisition  projects. 

Sec.  2302.  Family  housing. 

Sec.  2303.  Improvements  to  military  family  housing  units. 

Sec.  2304.  Authorization  of  appropriations.  Air  Force. 

TITLE  XXIV- DEFENSE  AGENCIES 

Sec.  2401.  Authorized  Defense  Agencies  construction  and  land  acquisition  projects. 

Sec.  2402.  Family  housing. 

Sec.  2403.  Improvements  to  military  family  housing  units. 

Sec.  2404.  Energy  conservation  projects. 

Sec.  2405.  Authorization  of  appropriations.  Defense  Agencies. 

TITLE  XX\'— NORTH  ATLANTIC  TREATY  ORGANIZATION  SECURITY  INVESTMENT  PROGRAM 

Sec.  2501.  Authorized  NATO  construction  and  land  acquisition  projects. 
Sec.  2502.  Authorization  of  appropriations,  NATO. 

TITLE  XXVI— GUARD  AND  RESERVE  FORCES  FACILITIES 

Sec.  2601.  Authorized  Guard  and  Reserve  construction  and  land  acquisition  projects. 

TITLE  XXVII— EXPIRATION  AND  EXTENSION  OF  AUTHORIZATIONS 

Sec.  2701.  Expiration  of  authorizations  and  amounts  required  to  be  specified  by  law. 


XVII 

Sec.  2702.  Extension  of  authorizations  of  certain  fiscal  year  2001  projects. 
Sec.  2703.  Extension  of  authorizations  of  certain  fiscal  year  2000  projects. 
Sec.  2704.  Effective  date. 

TITLE  XXVIIl— GENERAL  PROVISIONS 

Subtitle  A — Military  Construction  and  Military  Family  Housing 

Sec.  280  L  Streamlining  military  construction  to  reduce  facility  acquisition  and  construction  cycle  time. 
Sec.  2802.  Increased  terms  for  leases  of  family  housing  and  other  facilities  in  foreign  countries. 

Subtitle  B — Real  Property  and  Facilities  Administration 

Sec.  2811.  Expanded  authority  to  transfer  property  at  military  installations  to  be  closed  to  persons  who  con- 
struct or  provide  military  housing. 

Sec.  2812.  Acceptance  of  in-kind  consideration  for  easements. 

Sec.  2813.  Modification  of  authority  to  accept  funds  to  cover  administrative  expenses  relating  to  certain  real 
property  transactions. 

Sec.  2814.  Authority  to  convey  property  at  military  installations  to  persons  who  construct  or  provide  military 
housing. 

Sec.  2815.   Increase  in  threshold  for  reports  to  congressional  committees  on  real  property  transactions. 

Sec.  2816.  Contracting  with  local  governments  for  municipal  services. 

Subtitle  C— Other  Matters 

Sec.  2821.  Increase  authority  to  lease  military  family  housing  in  Italy. 

Sec.  2822.  Conveyance  of  Army  and  Air  Force  Exchange  Sei-vice  property,  Dallas,  Texas. 

DIVISION  A— DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE  I— PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle  A — ^Authorization  of  Appropriations 

SEC.  101.  ARMY. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  procure- 
ment for  the  Army  as  follows: 

(1)  For  aircraft,  $2,128,485,000. 

(2)  For  missiles,  $1,459,462,000. 

(3)  For  weapons  and  tracked  combat  vehicles,  $1,640,704,000. 

(4)  For  ammunition,  $1,309,966,000. 

(5)  For  other  procurement,  $4,216,854,000. 

SEC.  102.  NAVY  AND  MARINE  CORPS. 

(a)  Naw. — Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004 
for  procurement  for  the  Navy  as  follows: 

(1)  For  aircraft,  $8,788,148,000. 

(2)  For  weapons,  including  missiles  and  torpedoes,  $1,991,821,000. 

(3)  For  shipbuilding  and  conversion,  $11,438,984,000. 

(4)  For  other  procurement,  $4,679,443,000. 

(b)  Marine  Corps. — Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal 
year  2004  for  procurement  for  the  Marine  Corps  in  the  amount  of  $1,070,999,000. 

(c)  Navy  and  Marine  Corps  Ammunition. — Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be 
appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  procurement  of  ammunition  for  the  Navy  and 
Marine  Corps  in  the  amount  of  $922,355,000. 

SEC.  103.  AIR  FORCE. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  procure- 
ment for  the  Air  Force  as  follows: 

(1)  For  aircraft,  $12,079,360,000. 

(2)  For  missiles,  $4,393,039,000. 

(3)  For  procurement  of  ammunition,  $1,284,725,000. 

(4)  For  other  procurement,  $11,583,659,000. 

SEC.  104.  DEFENSE-WIDE  ACTIVITIES. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  defense- 
wide  procurement  in  the  amount  of  $3,691,006,000. 

SEC.  105.  DEFENSE  INSPECTOR  GENERAL. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  procure- 
ment for  the  Defense  Inspector  General  in  the  amount  of  $2,100,000. 


XVIII 

SEC.  106.  DEFENSE  HEALTH  PROGRAM. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  the  De- 
partment of  Defense  for  procurement  for  carrying  out  health  care  programs, 
projects,  and  activities  of  the  Department  of  Defense  in  the  total  amount  of 
$327,826,000. 

SEC.  107.  CHEMICAL  AGENTS  AND  MUNITIONS  DESTRUCTION. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  chemi- 
cal agents  and  munitions  destruction  in  the  amount  of  $1,650,076,000  for — 

(1)  the  destruction  of  lethal  chemical  weapons  in  accordance  with  section 
1412  of  the  Department  of  Defense  Authorization  Act,  1986  (50  U.S.C.  1521); 
and 

(2)  the  destruction  of  chemical  warfare  material  of  the  United  States  that 
is  not  covered  by  section  1412  of  such  Act. 

Subtitle  B — Multi-Year  Contract  Authorizations 

SEC.  111.  MULTIYEAR  PROCUREMENT  AUTHORITY  FOR  NAVY  PROGRAMS. 

(a)  Multi-Year  Contract  Authority. — Beginning  with  the  fiscal  year  2004 
program  year,  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may,  in  accordance  with  section  2306b  of 
title  10,  United  States  Code,  enter  into  multiyear  contracts  for  procurement  of  the 
following: 

(1)F/A-18  aircraft. 

(2)  E-2C  aircraft. 

(3)  the  Tactical  Tomahawk  missile. 

(4)  the  Virginia  class  submarine. 

(b)  Shipbuilder  Teaming. — Paragraphs  (2)(A),  (3),  and  (4)  of  section  121(b)  of 
the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1998  (Public  Law  105-85; 
111  Stat.  1648)  apply  to  the  procurement  of  Virginia  class  submarines  under  this 
section. 

SEC.   112.  AMENDMENT  TO  MULTFraAR  PROCUREMENT  AUTHORITY  FOR  C-130J  AIRCRAFT 
FOR  THE  AIR  FORCE. 

Section  131(a)  of  the  Bob  Stump  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal 
Year  2003  (Public  Law  107-314;  116  Stat.  2475)  is  amended  by  striking  "40  C-130J 
aircraft"  and  inserting  "42  C-130J  aircraft". 

TITLE  II— RESEARCH,  DEVELOPMENT,  TEST,  AND 
EVALUATION 

Subtitle  A — ^Authorization  of  Appropriations 

SEC.  201.  AUTHORIZATION  OF  APPROPRIATIONS. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  the  use 
of  the  Armed  Forces  for  research,  development,  test,  and  evaluation,  as  follows: 

(1)  For  the  Army,  $9,122,825,000. 

(2)  For  the  Navy,  $14,106,653,000. 

(3)  For  the  Air  Force,  $20,336,258,000. 

(4)  For  Defense-wide  research,  development,  test,  and  evaluation, 
$18,260,918,000,  of  which  $286,661,000  is  authorized  for  the  Director  of  Oper- 
ational Test  and  Evaluation. 

(5)  For  the  Defense  Health  Program,  $65,796,000. 

(6)  For  the  Defense  Inspector  General,  $300,000. 

Subtitle  B — Ballistic  Missile  Defense 

SEC.  211.  RENEWAL  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  ASSIST  LOCAL  COMMUNITIES  IMPACTED  BY  BALLIS- 
TIC MISSILE  DEFENSE  SYSTEM  TEST  BED. 

Section  235(b)(1)  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2002 
(Public  Law  107-107;  115  Stat.  1041)  is  amended  by  striking  "for  fiscal  year  2002" 
and  inserting  "for  fiscal  years  after  fiscal  year  2001". 


xrx 
Subtitle  C— Other  Matters 

SEC.  221.  RESCIND  THE  PROfflBITION  ON  RESEARCH  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  LOW-YIELD  NU- 
CLEAR WEAPONS. 

Section  3136  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1994 
(Public  Law  103-160;  107  Stat.  1946)  is  repealed. 

TITLE  III— OPERATION  AND  MAINTENANCE 
Subtitle  A — Authorization  of  Appropriations 

SEC.  301.  OPERATION  AND  MAINTENANCE  FUNDING. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  the  use 
of  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  and  other  activities  and  agencies  of  the 
Department  of  Defense,  for  expenses,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  for  operation  and 
maintenance,  in  amounts  as  follows: 

(1)  For  the  Army,  $24,965,342,000. 

(2)  For  the  Navy,  $28,287,690,000. 

(3)  For  the  Marine  Corps,  $3,406,656,000. 

(4)  For  the  Air  Force,  $27,793,931,000. 

(5)  For  the  Defense-wide  activities,  $16,570,847,000. 

(6)  For  the  Army  Reserve,  $1,952,009,000. 

(7)  For  the  Naval  Reserve,  $1,171,921,000. 

(8)  For  the  Marine  Corps  Reserve,  $173,952,000. 

(9)  For  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  $2,179,188,000. 

(10)  For  the  Army  National  Guard,  $4,211,331,000. 

(11)  For  the  Air  National  Guard,  $4,402,646,000. 

(12)  For  the  Defense  Inspector  General,  $160,049,000. 

(13)  For   the    United    States    Court   of  Appeals    for    the    Armed    Forces, 
$10,333,000. 

(14)  For  Environmental  Restoration,  Army,  $396,018,000. 

(15)  For  Environmental  Restoration,  Navy,  $256,153,000. 

(16)  For  Environmental  Restoration,  Air  Force,  $384,307,000. 

(17)  For  Environmental  Restoration,  Defense-wide,  $24,081,000. 

(18)  For    Environmental    Restoration,    Formerly    Used    Defense    Sites, 
$212,619,000. 

(19)  For    Overseas    Humanitarian,    Disaster,    and    Civic    Aid    programs, 
$59,000,000. 

(20)  For    Drug    Interdiction    and    Counter-drug   Activities,    Defense-wide, 
$817,371,000. 

(21)  For  the  Defense  Health  Program,  $14,876,887,000. 

(22)  For  Cooperative  Threat  Reduction  programs,  $450,800,000. 

(23)  For  Overseas  Contingency  Operations  Transfer  Fund,  $50,000,000. 

SEC.  302.  WORKING  CAPITAL  FUNDS. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  for  the  use 
of  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  and  other  activities  and  agencies  of  the 
Department  of  Defense  for  providing  capital  for  working  capital  and  revolving  funds 
in  amounts  as  follows: 

(1)  For  the  Defense  Working  Capital  Funds,  $1,721,507,000. 

(2)  For  the  National  Defense  Sealift  Fund,  $1,062,762,000. 

SEC.  303.  ARMED  FORCES  RETIREMENT  HOME. 

There  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  year  2004  from  the 
Armed  Forces  Retirement  Home  Trust  Fund  the  sum  of  $65,279,000  for  the  oper- 
ation of  the  Armed  Forces  Retirement  Home,  including  the  United  States  Soldiers' 
and  Airmen's  Home  and  the  Naval  Home. 

Subtitle  B — Environmental  Provisions 

SEC.  311.  CLARIFY  DEFINITIONS  OF  SALVAGE  FACILITIES  AND  SALVAGE  SERVICES  TO  IN- 
CLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL  RESPONSES  AND  RELATED  EQUIPMENT. 

(a)  Salvage  Facilities.— Section  7361(a)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is 
amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sentence:  "Salvage  facilities  in- 


XX 

elude,  but  are  not  limited  to,  eqmpment  and  gear  utilized  to  prevent,  abate  or  mini- 
mize damage  to  the  environment.". 

(b)  Settlement  of  Claims  for  Salvage  Services. — Section  7363  of  such  title 
is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sentence:  "Claims  for  such  sal- 
vage services  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  those  for  enhanced  or  special  com- 
pensation for  services  that  prevent,  abate  or  minimize  damage  to  the  environment.". 

SEC.  312.  AUTHORIZATION  FOR  FEDERAL  PARTICIPATION  IN  WETLAND  MITIGATION  BANKS. 

(a)  In  General. — Chapter  159  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§2697.    Authorization    for    Federal    participation    in    wetland    mitigation 
banks 

"The  Secretary  of  a  military  department  engaged  in  any  activity  resulting,  or 
which  may  result,  in  the  destruction  of  or  impacts  to  wetlands  is  authorized  to  make 
payments  to  wetland  mitigation  banking  programs  and  consolidated  user  sites  Cin- 
lieu-fee'  programs)  that  have  been  approved  in  accordance  with  the  Federal  Guid- 
ance for  the  Establishment,  Use,  and  Operation  of  Mitigation  Banks  or  the  Federal 
Guidance  on  the  Use  of  In-Lieu-Fee  Arrangements  for  Compensatory  Mitigation 
Under  Section  404  of  the  Clean  Water  Act  and  Section  10  of  the  Rivers  and  Harbors 
Act  as  an  alternative  to  creating  a  wetland  for  mitigation  on  Federal  property  for 
construction  projects.  These  payments  may  be  included  as  eligible  project  costs  for 
military  construction.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"2697.  Authorization  for  Federal  participation  in  wetland  mitigation  banks.". 

SEC.  313.  PROVISION  TO  EXEMPT  RESTORATION  ADVISORY  BOARDS  FROM  THE  FEDERAL  AD- 
VISORY COMMITTEE  ACT. 

Section  2705  (d)(2)  of  chapter  160  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended 
by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  subparagraph: 

"(C)  The  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act  (5  U.S.C.  App.)  shall  not  apply  to  any 
restoration  advisory  board  established  by  the  Secretary  pursuant  to  this  sub- 
section.". 

SEC.  314.  REPEAL  OF  MILITARY  EQUIPMENT  AND  INFRASTRUCTURE:  PREVENTION  AND  MITI- 
GATION OF  CORROSION. 

(a)  In  General. — Section  2228  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  repealed. 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  for  chapter  131  of  this  title 
is  amended  by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  2228. 

Subtitle  C — Workplace  and  Depot  Issues 

SEC.  321.  REPEAL  OF  TIME  LIMITATION  ON  EXCLUSION  OF  EXPENDITURES  ON  CONTRACTING 
FOR  DEPOT-LEVEL  MAINTENANCE. 

Section  2474(f)(2)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "for 
fiscal  years  2002  through  2005". 

SEC.  322.  EXCEPTION  TO  COMPETITION  REQUIREMENT  FOR  DEPOT-LEVEL  MAINTENANCE 
AND  REPAIR. 

Section  2469  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  inserting  at  the  end 
the  following  new  subsection  (d): 

"(d)  Exceptions. — This  section  shall  not  apply  with  respect  to  depot-level  main- 
tenance and  repair  workload  that  is  the  subject  of  a  public-private  partnership  en- 
tered into  pursuant  to  section  2474(b)  of  this  title  provided — 

"(1)  competition  is  sought  to  select  the  source  that  will  partner  with  the 
depot  to  perform  the  workload; 

"(2)  the  payment  requests  made  by  the  partnership  for  work  performed  re- 
flect the  full  cost  to  the  Government  of  resources  used  by  the  depot  for  provid- 
ing services,  which  shall  include  costs  of  resources  used,  but  not  paid  for,  by 
the  depot; 

"(3)  the  portion  of  the  payment  received  by  the  partnership  that  is  nec- 
essary to  cover  the  full  cost  of  performance  by  the  depot,  as  required  by  para- 
graph (2),  is  transferred  to  the  General  fund  in  the  Treasury  to  the  extent  the 
payment  is  reimbursing  the  depot  for  federal  resources  the  depot  has  used,  but 
not  paid  for,  in  performing  its  work; 


XXI 

"(4)  in  accordance  with  applicable  contracting  procedures,  the  customer 
agency  is  not  charged  for  any  effort  undertaken  by  the  partnership  to  correct 
performance  deficiencies;  and 

"(5)  the  depot  does  not  charge  its  partner  contractor  for  any  effort  the  depot 
undertakes  to  correct  performance  deficiencies  under  the  contract.". 

SEC.  323.  EXCLUDE  WORKLOADS  FOR  SPECLVL  ACCESS  PROGRAMS  FROM  LIMITATIONS  ON 
THE  PERFORMANCE  OF  DEPOT-LEVEL  MAINTENANCE  OF  MATERIEL. 

Section  2466(d)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 
"(d)  Exceptions. — Subsection  (a)  shall  not  apply  with  respect  to — 

"(1)  the  Sacramento  Army  Depot,  Sacramento,  California;  and 

"(2)  workloads  for  special  access  programs.". 

SEC.  324.  ESTABLISHING  MINIMUM  LEVEL  OF  PERFORMANCE  OF  DEPOT-LEVEL  MAINTE- 
NANCE OF  MATERIEL  BY  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  PERSONNEL  OR  AT  A  GOVERN- 
MENT-OWNED FACILITY. 

(a)  Establishing  Minimum  Level. — Section  2466(a)  of  title  10,  United  States 
Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"(a)  Allocation  of  Workload  Percentage. — At  least  50  percent  of  the  funds 
made  available  in  a  fiscal  year  to  a  military  department  or  a  Defense  Agency  for 
depot-level  maintenance  and  repair  workload  shall  be  used  for  the  performance  of 
such  workload  for  the  military  department  or  the  Defense  Agency  by  Federal  Gov- 
ernment personnel  or  at  a  Government-owned  facility.". 

(b)  (Conforming  Amendment. — Section  2474(f)(1)  of  such  title  is  amended  by 
striking  "percentage  limitation"  and  inserting  "allocation  of  workload  percentage". 

SEC.  325.  CENTERS  OF  INDUSTRIAL  AND  TECHNICAL  EXCELLENCE:  EXTENSION  OF  PARTNER- 
SHIP EXEMPTION. 

Section  2474(f)(1)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "at" 
and  inserting  "for". 

TITLE  IV— MILITARY  PERSONNEL  AUTHORIZATIONS 
Subtitle  A — ^Active  Forces 

SEC.  401.  END  STRENGTHS  FOR  ACTIVE  FORCES. 

The  Armed  Forces  are  authorized  strengths  for  active  duty  personnel  as  of  Sep- 
tember 30,  2004,  as  follows: 

(l)The  Army,  480,000. 

(2)  The  Navy,  373,800. 

(3)  The  Marine  Corps,  175,000. 

(4)  The  Air  Force,  359,300. 

Subtitle  B — Reserve  Forces 

SEC.  411.  END  STRENGTHS  FOR  SELECTED  RESERVE. 

(a)  In  General. — The  Armed  Forces  are  authorized  strengths  for  Selected  Re- 
serve personnel  of  the  reserve  components  as  of  September  30,  2004,  as  follows: 

(1)  The  Army  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  350,000. 

(2)  The  Army  Reserve,  205,000. 

(3)  The  Naval  Reserve,  85,900. 

(4)  The  Marine  Corps  Reserve,  39,600. 

(5)  The  Air  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  107,000. 

(6)  The  Air  Force  Reserve,  75,800. 

(7)  The  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  10,000. 

(b)  Adjustments. — The  end  strengths  prescribed  by  subsection  (a)  for  the  Se- 
lected Reserve  of  any  reserve  component  shall  be  proportionately  reduced  by — 

(1)  the  total  authorized  strength  of  units  organized  to  serve  as  units  of  the 
Selected  Reserve  of  such  component  which  are  on  active  duty  (other  than  for 
training)  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year;  and 

(2)  the  total  number  of  individual  members  not  in  units  organized  to  serve 
as  units  of  the  Selected  Reserve  of  such  component  who  are  on  active  duty 
(other  than  for  training  or  for  unsatisfactory  participation  in  training)  without 
their  consent  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year. 

Whenever  such  units  or  such  individual  members  are  released  fi-om  active  duty  dur- 
ing any  fiscal  year,  the  end  strength  prescribed  for  such  fiscal  year  for  the  Selected 
Reserve  of  such  reserve  component  shall  be  increased  proportionately  by  the  total 


XXII 

authorized  strengths  of  such  units  and  by  the  total  number  of  such  individual  mem- 
bers. 

SEC.  412.  ENfD  STRENGTHS  FOR  RESERVES  ON  ACTIVE  DUTY  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE  RESERVES. 

Within  the  end  strengths  prescribed  in  section  411(a),  the  reserve  components 
of  the  Armed  Forces  are  authorized,  as  of  September  30,  2004,  the  following  number 
of  Reserves  to  be  serving  on  full-time  active  duty  or,  in  the  case  of  members  of  the 
National  Guard,  full-time  National  Guard  duty  for  the  purpose  of  organizing,  ad- 
ministering, recruiting,  instructing,  or  training  the  reserve  components: 

(1)  The  Army  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  25,386. 

(2)  The  Army  Reserve,  14,374. 

(3)  The  Naval  Reserve,  14,384. 

(4)  The  Marine  Corps  Reserve,  2,261. 

(5)  The  Air  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  12,140. 

(6)  The  Air  Force  Reserve,  1,660. 

SEC.  413.  END  STRENGTHS  FOR  MILITARY  TECHNICIANS  (DUAL  STATUS). 

The  Reserve  Components  of  the  Army  and  the  Air  Force  are  authorized 
strengths  for  military  technicians  (dual  status)  as  of  September  30,  2004,  as  follows: 

(1)  For  the  Army  Reserve,  6,699. 

(2)  For  the  Army  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  24,589. 

(3)  For  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  9,991. 

(4)  For  the  Air  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  22,806. 

SEC.  414.  FISCAL  YEAR  2004  LIMITATION  ON  NUMBER  OF  NON-DUAL  STATUS  TECHNICIANS. 

The  number  of  civiliem  employees  who  are  non-dual  status  technicians  of  a  re- 
serve component  of  the  Army  or  Air  Force  as  of  September  30,  2004,  may  not  exceed 
the  following: 

(1)  For  the  Army  Reserve,  895. 

(2)  For  the  Army  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  1,600. 

(3)  For  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  90. 

(4)  For  the  Air  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  350. 

TITLE  V— MILITARY  PERSONNEL  POLICY 
Subtitle  A — Officer  Personnel  Policy 

SEC.  501.  REPEAL  OF  PROHIBITION  AGAINST  REGULAR  NAVY  OFFICERS  TRANSFERRING  BE- 
TWEEN LINE  AND  STAFF  CORPS  IN  GRADES  ABOVE  LIEUTENANT  COMMANDER. 

(a)  Repeal. — Section  5582  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  repealed. 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter 
539  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  5582. 

SEC.  502.  RETENTION  OF  OFFICERS  SERVING  IN  HEALTH  PROFESSIONS  TO  FULFILL  ACTIVE 
DUTY  SERVICE  COMMITMENTS  FOLLOWING  PROMOTION  NON-SELECTION. 

(a)  In  General. — Subsection  (a)  of  section  632  of  title  10,  United  States  Code, 
is  amended — 

(1)  by  striking  "or"  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (2); 

(2)  by  striking  the  period  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (3)  and  inserting  ";  or"; 
and 

(3)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(4)  if  on  the  date  on  which  he  is  to  be  discharged  under  paragraph  (Da 
medical  officer  or  dental  officer  or  an  officer  appointed  in  a  medical  skill  other 
than  as  a  medical  officer  or  dental  officer  (as  defined  in  regulations  prescribed 
by  the  Secretary  of  Defense)  has  yet  to  complete  a  period  of  active  duty  service 
obhgation  incurred  under  section  2005,  2114,  2123,  or  2603  of  this  title,  he  shall 
be  retained  on  active  duty  until  completion  of  such  service  obligation,  unless  the 
Secretary  concerned  determines  that  completion  of  the  active  duty  obligation  is 
not  in  the  best  interest  of  the  military  department.". 

(b)  Technical  Amendment. — Such  subsection  is  further  amended  by  striking 
"clause  (1)"  in  paragraph  (3)  and  inserting  "paragraph  (1)". 

SEC.  503.  REQUIREMENT  OF  EXEMPLARY  CONDUCT. 

(a)  In  General. — Chapter  3  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  in- 
serting after  section  121  the  following  new  section: 

"§  121a.  Requirement  of  exemplary  conduct 

"All  commanding  officers  and  others  in  authority  in  the  Department  of  Defense 
are  required — 


XXIII 

"(1)  to  show  in  themselves  a  good  example  of  virtue,  honor,  patriotism,  and 
subordination; 

"(2)  to  be  vigilant  in  inspecting  the  conduct  of  all  persons  who  are  placed 
under  their  command  or  charge; 

"(3)  to  guard  against  and  to  suppress  all  dissolute  and  immoral  practices 
and  to  correct,  according  to  applicable  laws  and  regulations,  all  persons  who  are 
guilty  of  them;  and 

"(4)  to  take  all  necessary  and  proper  measures,  under  the  laws,  regulations, 
and  customs  applicable  to  the  armed  forces,  to  promote  and  safeguard  the  mo- 
rale, the  physical  well-being,  and  the  general  welfare  of  the  officers,  enlisted 
persons,  and  civilian  persons  under  their  command  or  charge.", 
(b)  Conforming  and  Clerical  Amendments. — (1)  The  table  of  sections  at  the 
beginning  of  such  chapter  is  amended  by  inserting  after  the  item  relating  to  section 
121  the  following  new  item: 

"121a.  Requirement  of  exemplary  conduct.". 

(2)  Title  10  is  further  amended  as  follows: 

(A)(i)  Section  3583  is  repealed. 

(ii)  The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter  345  is  amended  by 
striking  the  item  relating  to  section  3583. 

(B)(i)  Section  5947  is  repealed. 

(ii)  The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter  551  is  amended  by 
striking  the  item  relating  to  section  5947. 

(CKi)  Section  8583  is  repealed. 

(ii)  The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter  845  is  amended  by 
striking  the  item  relating  to  section  8583. 

Subtitle  B — Reserve  Component  Management 

SEC.  511.  READY  RESERVE  TRAINING  REQUIREMENT. 

Subsection  (a)  of  section  10147  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to 
read  as  follows: 

"(a)  Except  as  specifically  provided  in  regulations  to  be  prescribed  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  Defense,  or  by  the  Secretary  of  Homeland  Security  with  respect  to  the 
Coast  Guard  when  it  is  not  operating  as  a  service  in  the  Navy,  each  person  who 
is  enlisted,  inducted,  or  appointed  in  an  armed  force,  and  who  becomes  a  member 
of  the  Ready  Reserve  under  any  provision  of  law  except  section  513  or  10145(b)  of 
this  title,  shall  be  required,  while  in  the  Ready  Reserve,  to  participate  in  a  combina- 
tion of  drills,  training  periods  or  active  duty  equivalent  to  38  days,  exclusive  of  trav- 
el, during  each  year.". 

SEC.  512.  STREAMLINE  PROCESS  TO  CONTINUE  OFFICERS  ON  THE  RESERVE  ACTIVE  STATUS 
LIST. 

(a)  Continuation. — Section  14701  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (a) — 

(A)  in  paragraph  (1),  by  striking  "by  a  selection  board  convened  under 
section  14101(b)  of  this  title"  and  inserting  "under  regulations  prescribed  by 
the  Secretary  concerned"; 

(B)  in  paragraph  (6),  by  striking  "as  a  result  of  the  convening  of  a  selec- 
tion board  under  section  14101(b)  of  this  title"; 

(2)  by  striking  subsections  (b)  and  (c);  and 

(3)  by  redesignating  subsection  (d)  as  subsection  (b). 

(b)  Conforming  Amendment. — Subsection  (b)  of  section  14101  of  such  title  is 
amended — 

(1)  by  striking  paragraph  (1);  and 

(2)  by  redesignating  paragraphs  (2)  and  (3)  as  paragraphs  (1)  and  (2),  re- 
spectively. 

Subtitle  C — Military  Education  and  Training 

SEC.  521.  AUTHORITY  FOR  THE  MARINE  CORPS  UNIVERSITY  TO  AWARD  THE  DEGREE  OF  MAS- 
TER OF  OPERATIONAL  STUDIES. 

Section  7102  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  by  redesignating  subsections  (c)  and  (d)  as  subsections  (d)  and  (e),  re- 
spectively; and 

(2)  by  inserting  after  subsection  (b)  the  following  new  subsection  (c): 


xxrv 

"(c)  Command  and  Staff  College  of  the  Marine  Corps  University. — Upon 
the  recommendation  of  the  Director  and  faculty  of  the  Command  and  Staff  College 
of  the  Marine  Corps  University,  the  President  of  the  Marine  Corps  University  may 
confer  the  degree  of  master  of  operational  studies  upon  graduates  of  the  Command 
and  Staff  College's  School  of  Advanced  Warfighting  who  fulfill  the  requirements  for 
that  degree.". 

SEC.  522.  JOINT  PROFESSIONAL  MILITARY  EDUCATION. 

Section  663(e)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  repealed. 

Subtitle  D — ^Administrative  Matters 

sec.  531.  ENHANCEMENTS  TO  PERSONNEL  TEMPO  PROGRAM. 

(a)  Revisions  to  Deployment  Limits  and  Authority  To  Authorize  Exemp- 
tions.— Section  991(a)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"(a)  Service  and  General  or  Flag  Officer  Responsibilities.— The  deploy- 
ment (or  potential  deployment)  of  a  member  of  the  armed  forces  shall  be  managed 
to  ensure  the  member  is  not  deployed,  or  continued  in  a  deployment,  on  any  day 
on  which  the  total  number  of  days  on  which  the  member  has  been  deployed  out  of 
the  preceding  730  days  would  exceed  400,  or  a  lower  threshold  as  approved  by  the 
Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Personnel  and  Readiness.  The  member  may  be  de- 
ployed, or  continued  in  a  deplojrment,  without  regard  to  the  preceding  sentence  if 
such  deployment,  or  continued  deployment,  is  approved  by  a  member  of  the  Senior 
Executive  Service  or  the  first  general  or  flag  officer  (including  officers  in  the  grade 
of  0—6  in  such  positions  already  selected  for  general  or  flag  rank)  in  the  member's 
chain  of  command.". 

(b)  Changes  to  High-Deployment  Allowance. — Section  436  of  title  37, 
United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  by  amending  subsection  (a)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(a)  Monthly  Allowance  Required. — The  Secretary  of  the  military  depart- 
ment concerned  shall  pay  a  high-deplojrment  allowance  to  a  member  of  the  armed 
forces  under  the  Secretary's  jurisdiction  for  each  month  during  which  the  member — 
"(1)  is  deployed;  and 

"(2)  has,  as  of  that  day,  been  deployed  for  either  or  both  of  the  following 
periods: 

"(A)  401  or  more  days  out  of  the  preceding  730  days  (or  at  a  lower 
threshold  as  approved  by  the  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Personnel  and 
Readiness);  or 

"(B)  191  or  more  consecutive  days  (or  for  a  lower  threshold  as  approved 
by  the  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Personnel  and  Readiness)."; 

(2)  by  amending  subsection  (c)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(c)  Maximum  Rate. — The  maximum  monthly  rate  of  the  allowance  payable  to 
a  member  under  this  section  is  $1,000."; 

(3)  in  subsection  (e),  by  striking  "per  diem"  and  inserting  "allowance"; 

(4)  in  subsection  (f)— 

(A)  by  striking  "per  diem"  and  inserting  "allowance";  and 

(B)  by  striking  "day  on"  and  inserting  "month  during";  and 

(5)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  subsection: 

"(g)  Excluded  Billets. — The  Secretary  concerned  may  exclude  selected  billets 
ft-om  eligibility  for  the  high-deployment  allowance  upon  approval  by  the  Under  Sec- 
retary of  Defense  for  Personnel  and  Readiness.  A  billet  may  only  be  excluded  on  a 
prospective  basis  once  the  current  incumbent  has  vacated  that  billet.". 

(c)  Changes  to  Reporting  Requirement. — Section  487(b)(5)  of  title  10,  United 
States  Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"(5)  For  each  of  the  armed  forces,  the  description  shall  indicate  the  number  of 
members  who  received  the  high-deployment  allowance,  the  total  number  of  months 
for  which  the  allowance  was  paid  to  members,  and  the  total  amount  spent  on  the 
allowance.". 

(d)  Clerical  Amendments. — (1)  The  heading  of  section  436  of  title  37,  United 
States  Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"§436.  Monthly  high-deployment  allowance  for  lengthy  or  numerous  de- 
ployments"; 

and 


XXV 

(2)  The  item  relating  to  that  section  in  the  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning 
of  chapter  7  of  such  title  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"4.36.  Monthly  high-deployment  allowance  for  lengthy  or  numerous  deployments.". 
SEC.  532.  CONSISTENT  TIME  IN  SERVICE  RETIREMENT  CRITERIA. 

(a)  Officers  in  Regular  Navy  or  Marine  Corps  Who  Completed  40  Years 
OF  Acxn,^  Service. — Section  6321(a)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
striking  "after  completing  40  or  more  years"  and  inserting  "and  has  at  least  40 
years". 

(b)  Officers  in  Regular  Navy  or  Marine  Corps  Who  Completed  30  Years 
OF  Active  Service. — Section  6322(a)  of  such  is  amended  by  striking  "after  complet- 
ing 30  or  more  years"  and  inserting  "and  has  at  least  30  years". 

(c)  Officers  in  Navy  or  Marine  Corps  Who  Completed  20  Years  of  Active 
Service. — Section  6323(a)(1)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "after  completing 
more  than  20  years"  and  inserting  "and  has  at  least  20  years". 

(d)  Enlisted  Members  in  Regular  Navy  or  Marine  Corps  Who  Completed 
30  Years  of  Active  Service. — Section  6326(a)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking 
"after  completing  30  or  more  years"  and  inserting  "and  has  at  least  30  years". 

(e)  Transfer  of  Enlisted  Members  to  the  Fleet  Reserve  and  Fleet  Ma- 
rine Corps  Reserve. — Section  6330(b)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "who 
has  completed  20  or  more  years"  both  places  it  appears  and  inserting  "and  has  at 
least  20  years". 

(f)  Transfer  of  Members  of  the  Fleet  Reserve  and  Fleet  Marine  Corps 
Reserve  to  the  Retired  List. — Section  6331(a)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking 
"completed  30  years"  and  inserting  "has  at  least  30  years". 

(g)  Effective  Date. — The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may  determine  the  effective 
date  of  the  amendments  made  by  this  section. 

Subtitle  E — Benefits 

SEC  541.  AUTHORITY  TO  TRANSPORT  REMAINS  OF  RETIREES  WHO  DEE  IN  MILITARY  TREAT- 
MENT FACILITIES  OUTSIDE  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

(a)  Authorize  Transport  Outside  the  United  States. — Section  1490  of  title 
10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "located  in  the  United  States";  and 

(2)  in  subsection  (b)(1),  by  striking  "outside  the  United  States  or  to  a  place". 

(b)  Conforming  Amendment. — Subsection  (c)  of  such  section  is  amended  to 
read  as  follows: 

"(c)  In  this  section,  the  term  'dependent'  has  the  meaning  given  such  term  in 
section  1072(2)  of  this  title.". 

SEC  542.  change  FAMILY  SEPARATION  HOUSING  ALLOWANCE  FROM  AN  ENTITLEMENT  TO 
A  DISCRETIONARY  ALLOWANCE. 

Section  403(d)(1)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "is  enti- 
tled to"  and  inserting  "may  be  paid,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  concerned,". 

SEC  543.  PAYMENT  OF  DEPENDENT  STUDENT  BAGGAGE  STORAGE. 

Section  430(b)(2)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "during 
the  dependent's  annual  trip  between  the  school  and  the  member's  duty  station"  and 
inserting  "one  time  per  fiscal  year". 

SEC.  544.  MODIFICATION  OF  PROHIBITION  ON  REQUIREMENT  OF  NONAVAILABILITY  STATE- 
MENT OR  PREAUTHORIZATION. 

Section  721  of  the  Floyd  D.  Spence  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fis- 
cal Year  2001  (Public  Lav/  106-398;  114  Stat.  1654A-184),  as  enacted  into  law  by 
Public  Law  106-398,  and  as  amended  by  Public  Law  107-107,  is  hereby  repealed. 

Subtitle  F— Military  Justice  Matters 

SEC.  551.  TECHNICAL  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  UNIFORM  CODE  OF  MILITARY  JUSTICE  CONCERN- 
ING THE  offense  OF  DRUNKEN  OPERATION  OF  A  VEHICLE.  AIRCRAFT,  OR  VES- 
SEL. 

Section  911  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 
"§911.  Drunken  or  reckless  operation  of  a  vehicle,  aircraft,  or  vessel 

"(a)  Any  person  subject  to  this  chapter  who — 


XXVI 

"(1)  operates  or  physically  controls  any  vehicle,  aircraft,  or  vessel  in  a  reck- 
less or  wanton  manner  or  while  impaired  by  a  substance  described  in  section 
912a(b)  of  this  title,  or 

"(2)  operates  or  is  in  actual  physical  control  of  any  vehicle,  aircraft,  or  ves- 
sel while  drunk  or  when  the  alcohol  concentration  in  the  person's  blood  or 
breath  is  at  or  above  the  level  prohibited  under  subsection  (b),  as  shown  by 
chemical  analysis,  shall  be  punished  as  a  court-martial  may  direct. 
"(b)(1)  For  purposes  of  subsection  (a),  the  applicable  limit  on  the  alcohol  con- 
centration in  a  person's  blood  or  breath  is  as  follows: 

"(A)  In  the  case  of  the  operation  or  control  of  a  vehicle,  aircraft,  or  vessel 
in  the  -United  States,  the  level  is  the  blood  or  breath  alcohol  concentration  pro- 
hibited under  the  law  of  the  State  in  which  the  conduct  occurred,  except  as  may 
be  provided  under  paragraph  (2)  for  conduct  on  a  military  installation  that  is 
in  more  than  one  State,  and  subject  to  the  prohibited  alcohol  concentration  level 
specified  in  paragraph  (3). 

"(B)  In  the  case  of  the  operation  or  control  of  a  vehicle,  aircraft,  or  vessel 
outside  the  United  States,  the  level  is  the  blood  alcohol  concentration  specified 
in  paragraph  (3)  or  such  lower  level  as  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may  by  regula- 
tion prescribe. 

"(2)  In  the  case  of  a  military  installation  that  is  in  more  than  one  State,  if  those 
States  have  different  levels  for  defining  their  prohibited  blood  alcohol  concentrations 
under  their  respective  State  laws,  the  Secretary  concerned  for  the  installation  may 
select  one  such  level  to  apply  uniformly  on  that  installation. 

"(3)  For  purposes  of  paragraph  (1),  the  level  of  alcohol  concentration  prohibited 
in  a  person's  blood  is  0.10  grams  or  more  of  alcohol  per  100  milliliters  of  blood  and 
with  respect  to  a  person's  breath  is  0.10  grams  or  more  of  alcohol  per  210  liters  of 
breath,  as  shown  by  chemical  analysis. 

"(4)  In  this  subsection,  the  term  'United  States'  included  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico,  the  Virgin  Islands,  Guam,  and  American 
Samoa  and  the  term  'State'  includes  each  of  those  jurisdictions.". 

Subtitle  G— Other  Matters 

SEC.  561.  BASIC  TRAINING  REQUIREMENT  FOR  CERTAIN  MEMBERS  ACCESSED  UNDER  A  DI- 
RECT ENTRY  PROGRAM. 

Paragraph  (1)  of  section  671(c)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to 
read  as  follows: 

"(1)  Under  regulations  prescribed  under  paragraph  (2),  a  period  of  basic 
training  (or  equivalent  training)  shorter  than  12  weeks  may  be  established  by 
the  Secretary  concerned  for  members  of  the  armed  forces  who — 

"(A)  have  been  credentialed  in  a  medical  profession  or  occupation  and 
are  serving  in  a  health-care  occupational  specialty;  or 

"(B)  have  been  accessed  into  a  direct  entry  program  established  by  the 
Secretary  concerned  based  on  unique  skills  acquired  in  a  civilian  occupa- 
tion. 
Any  such  period  shall  be  established  under  regulations  prescribed  under  para- 
graph (2)  and  may  be  established  notwithstanding  section  4(a)  of  the  Military 
Selective  Service  Act  (50  U.S.C.  App.  454(a)).". 

SEC.  562.  ALTERNATE   INITIAL  MILITARY  SERVICE  OBLIGATION  FOR  PERSONS  ACCESSED 
UNDER  DIRECT  ENTRY  PROGRAM. 

Subsection  (a)  of  section  651  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to  read 
as  follows: 

"(a)(1)  Each  person  who  becomes  a  member  of  an  armed  force,  other  than  a  per- 
son described  in  paragraph  (2),  shall  serve  in  the  armed  forces  for  a  total  initial  pe- 
riod of  not  less  than  six  years  nor  more  than  eight  years,  as  provided  in  regulations 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  Defense  for  the  armed  forces  under  his  jurisdiction 
and  by  the  Secretary  of  Homeland  Security  for  the  Coast  Guard  when  it  is  not  oper- 
ating as  a  service  in  the  Navy,  unless  such  person  is  sooner  discharged  under  such 
regulations  because  of  personal  hardship.  Any  part  of  such  service  that  is  not  active 
duty  or  that  is  active  duty  for  training  shall  be  performed  in  a  reserve  component. 
"(2)  A  person  is  not  subject  to  paragraph  (1)  if  that  person — 

"(A)  deferred  under  the  next  to  the  last  sentence  of  section  6(d)(1)  of  the 
Military  Selective  Service  Act  (50  U.S.C.  App.  456(d)(1));  or 

"(B)  accessed  into  a  direct  entry  program  established  by  the  Secretary  con- 
cerned based  on  unique  skills  acquired  in  a  civilian  occupation.". 


XXVII 
SEC.  563.  JOINT  WARFIGHTING  CAPABILITIES  FUNDING. 

Section  166a(b)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the 
end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(10)  Joint  warfighting  capabilities.". 

SEC.  564.  REAPPOINTMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  AND  VICE-CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  JOINT  CHIEFS  OF 
STAFF  DURING  NATIONAL  EMERGENCY. 

(a)  Reappointment  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff. — Section 
152(a)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  paragraph  (1),  by  striking  "in  time  of  war"  and  inserting  "in  time  of 
war  or  during  a  national  emergency  declared  by  the  President  or  Congress";  and 

(2)  in  paragraph  (3),  by  striking  "in  time  of  war"  and  inserting  "in  time  of 
war  or  during  a  national  emergency  declared  by  the  President  or  Congress". 

(b)  Reappointment  of  the  Vice-Chairman  of  the  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff.— 
Paragraph  (3)  of  section  154(a)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "in  time  of  war" 
and  inserting  "in  time  of  war  or  during  a  national  emergency  declared  by  the  Presi- 
dent or  Congress". 

TITLE  VI— COMPENSATION  AND  OTHER  PERSONNEL 

BENEFITS 

Subtitle  A — Pay  and  Allowances 

SEC.  601.  INCREASE  IN  BASIC  PAY  FOR  FISCAL  YEAR  2004. 

(a)  Waiver  of  Section  1009  Adjustment. — The  adjustment  to  become  effective 
during  fiscal  year  2004  required  by  section  1009  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  in 
the  rates  of  monthly  basic  pay  authorized  members  of  the  uniformed  services  shall 
not  be  made. 

(b)  Increase  in  Basic  Pay  for  Members  of  Armed  Forces. — Effective  on  Jan- 
uary 1,  2004,  the  rates  of  monthly  basic  pay  for  members  of  the  armed  forces  within 
each  pay  grade  are  as  follows: 


COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS  i 

Years  of  service  computed  under  section  205  of  title  37,  United  States  Code 


Pay 
Grade 

2  or  less 

Over  2 

Over  3 

Over  4 

Over  6 

0-10  2 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

0-9 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0-8 

7,751.10 

8,004.90 

8,173.20 

8,220.60 

8,430.30 

0-7 

6,440.70 

6,739.80 

6,878.40 

6,988.50 

7,187.40 

0-6 

4,773.60 

5,244.30 

5,588.40 

5,588.40 

5,609.70 

0-5 

3,979.50 

4,482.90 

4,793.40 

4,851.60 

5,044.80 

0-4 

3,433.50 

3,974.70 

4,239.90 

4,299.00 

4,545.30 

0-33  .... 

3,018.90 

3,422.40 

3,693.90 

4,027.20 

4,220.10 

0-2  3 

2,595.60 

2,956.50 

3,405.00 

3,519.90 

3,592.50 

0-1 3  .... 

2,253.60 

2,345.10 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

Overs 

Over  10 

Over  12 

Over  14 

Over  16 

0-102  .. 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

0-9 

0,00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0-8 

8,781.90 

8,863.50 

9,197.10 

9,292.80 

9,579.90 

0-7 

7,384.20 

7,611.90 

7,839.00 

8,066.70 

8,781.90 

0-6 

5,850.00 

5,882,10 

5,882.10 

6,216.30 

6,807.30 

0-5 

5,161.20 

5,415.90 

5,602.80 

5,844.00 

6,213.60 

0-4 

4,809.30 

5,137.80 

5,394.00 

5,571.60 

5,673.60 

0-33  .... 

4,431.60 

4,568.70 

4,794.30 

4,911.30 

4,911.30 

0-2  3 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

XXVIII 


COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS  i— Continued 
Years  of  service  computed  under  section  205  of  title  37,  United  States  Code 


Pay 
Grade 

2  or  less 

Over  2 

Over  3 

Over  4 

Over  6 

0-1 3  .... 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

Over  18 

Over  20 

Over  22 

Over  24 

Over  26 

0-102  .. 

$0.00 

$12,524.70 

$12,586.20 

$12,847.80 

$13,303.80 

0-9 

0.00 

10,954.50 

11,112.30 

11,340.30 

11,738.40 

0-8 

9,995.70 

10,379.10 

10,635.30 

10,635.30 

10,635.30 

0-7 

9,386.10 

9,386.10 

9,386.10 

9,386.10 

9,433.50 

0-6 

7,154.10 

7,500.90 

7,698.30 

7,897.80 

8,285.40 

0-5 

6,389.70 

6,563.40 

6,760.80 

6,760.80 

6,760.80 

0-4 

5,733.00 

5,733.00 

5,733.00 

5,733.00 

5,733.00 

0-33  .... 

4.911.30 

4,911.30 

4,911.30 

4,911.30 

4,911.30 

0-23 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

3,592.50 

0-1 3  .... 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

2,834.70 

1  Notwithstanding  the  basic  pay  rates  specified  in  this  table,  the  actual  rate  of  basic  pay  for  commis- 
sioned officers  in  pay  grades  0-7  through  O-IO  may  not  exceed  the  rate  of  pay  for  level  III  of  the  Executive 
Schedule  and  the  actual  rate  of  basic  pay  for  all  other  officers  may  not  exceed  the  rate  of  pay  for  level  V  of 
the  Executive  Schedule. 

2  Subject  to  the  preceding  footnote,  the  rate  of  basic  pay  for  an  officer  in  this  grade  while  serving  as 
Chairman  or  Vice  Chairman  of  the  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff,  Chief  of  Staff  of  the  Army,  Chief  of  Naval  Oper- 
ations, Chief  of  Staff  of  the  Air  Force,  Commandant  of  the  Marine  Corps,  or  Commandant  of  the  Coast 
Guard,  is  $14,679.30,  regardless  of  cumulative  years  of  service  computed  under  section  205  of  title  37, 
United  States  Code. 

3 This  table  does  not  apply  to  commissioned  officers  in  pay  grade  0-1,  0-2,  or  0-3  who  have  been  cred- 
ited with  over  4  years  of  active  duty  service  as  an  enlisted  member  or  warrant  officer. 


XXIX 


COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS  WITH  OVER  4  YEARS  OF  ACTIVE  DUTY  SERVICE  AS  AN  ENLISTED 

MEMBER  OR  WARRANT  OFFICER 

Years  of  service  computed  under  section  205  of  title  37,  United  States  Code 


Pay 
Grade 

2  or  less 

Over  2 

Over  3 

Over  4 

Overs 

0-3E 

0-2E 

0-lE 

$0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

$0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

$0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

$4,027.20 
3,537.00 
2,848.50 

$4,220.10 
3,609.90 
3,042.30 

Over  8 

Over  10 

Over  12 

Over  14 

Over  16 

0-3E 

0-2E 

0-lE 

$4,431.60 
3,724.80 
3,154.50 

$4,568.70 
3,918.60 
3,269.40 

$4,794.30 
4,068.60 
3,382.20 

$4,984.20 
4,180.20 
3,537.00 

$5,092.80 
4,180.20 
3,537.00 

Over  18 

Over  20 

Over  22 

Over  24 

Over  26 

0-3E 

0-2E 

0-lE 

$5,241.30 
4,180.20 
3,537.00 

$5,241.30 
4,180.20 
3,537.00 

$5,241.30 
4,180.20 
3,537.00 

$5,241.30 
4,180.20 
3,537.00 

$5,241.30 
4,180.20 
3,537.00 

WARRANT  OFFICERS  i 
Years  of  service  computed  under  section  205  of  title  37,  United  States  Code 


Pay 
Grade 

2  or  less 

Over  2 

Over  3 

Over  4 

Over  6 

W-5  

W-4  

W-3  

W-2  

W-1  

$0.00 
3,119.40 
2,848.80 
2,505.90 
2,212.80 

$0.00 
3,355.80 
2,967.90 
2,649.00 
2,394.00 

$0.00 
3,452.40 
3,089.40 
2,774.10 
2,515.20 

$0.00 
3,547.20 
3,129.30 
2,865.30 
2,593.50 

$0.00 
3,710.40 
3,257.10 
2,943.30 
2,802.30 

Over  8 

Over  10 

Over  12 

Over  14 

Over  16 

W-5  

W-4  

W-3  

W-2  

W-1  

$0.00 
3,871.50 
3,403.20 
3,157.80 
2,928.30 

$0.00 
4,035.00 
3,595.80 
3,321,60 
3,039.90 

$0.00 
4,194.30 
3,786.30 
3,443.40 
3,164.70 

$0.00 
4,359.00 
3,988.80 
3,562.20 
3,247.20 

$0.00 
4,617.30 
4,140.60 
3,643.80 
3,321.90 

Over  18 

Over  20 

Over  22 

Over  24 

Over  26 

W-5  

W-4  

W-3  

W-2  

W-1  

$0.00 
4,782.60 
4,291.80 
3,712.50 
3,443.70 

$5,360.70 
4,944.30 
4,356.90 
3,843.00 
3,535.80 

$5,544.30 
5,112.00 
4,424.10 
3,972.60 
3,535.80 

$5,728.80 
5,277.00 
4,570.20 
4,103.70 
3,535.80 

$5,914.20 
5,445.90 
4,716.30 
4,103.70 
3,535.80 

'  Notwithstanding  the  basic  pay  rates  specified  in  this  table,  the  actual  rate  of  basic  pay  for  warrant  offi- 
cers may  not  exceed  the  rate  of  pay  for  level  V  of  the  Executive  Schedule. 


XXX 


ENLISTED  MEMBERS  i 
Years  of  service  computed  under  section  205  of  title  37,  United  States  Code 


Pay 
Grade 

2  or  less 

Over  2 

Over  3 

Over  4 

Over  6 

E-92  .... 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

E-8 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

E-7  

2,145.00 

2,341.20 

2,430.60 

2,549.70 

2.642.10 

E-6 

1,855.50 

2,041.20 

2,131.20 

2,218.80 

2,310.00 

E-5 

1,700.10 

1,813.50 

1,901.10 

1,991.10 

2,130.60 

E-4 

1,558.20 

1,638.30 

1,726.80 

1,814.10 

1,891.50 

E-3 

1,407.00 

1,495.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

E-2 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

E-P  .... 

1,086.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

Over  8 

Over  10 

Over  12 

Over  14 

Over  16 

E-92  .... 

$0.00 

$3,769.20 

$3,854.70 

$3,962.40 

$4,089.30 

E-8 

3,085.50 

3.222.00 

3,306.30 

3,407.70 

3,517.50 

E-7  

2,801.40 

2,891.10 

2,980.20 

3,139.80 

3,219.60 

E-6 

2,516.10 

2,596.20 

2,685.30 

2,763.30 

2,790.90 

E-5 

2,250.90 

2,339.70 

2,367.90 

2,367.90 

2,367.90 

E-4 

1,891.50 

1,891.50 

1,891.50 

1,891.50 

1,891.50 

E-3 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

E-2 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1.331.40 

E-P  .... 

1,173.90 

1,173.90 

1.173.90 

1,173.90 

1.173.90 

Over  18 

Over  20 

Over  22 

Over  24 

Over  26 

E-92  .... 

$4,216.50 

$4,421.10 

$4,594.20 

$4,776.60 

$5,054.70 

E-8 

3,715.50 

3,815.70 

3,986.40 

4,081.20 

4.314.30 

E-7 

3,295.50 

3.341.70 

3.498.00 

3,599.10 

3.855.00 

E-6 

2,809.80 

2,809.80 

2.809.80 

2,809.80 

2,809.80 

E-5 

2,367.90 

2.367.90 

2.367.90 

2,367.90 

2,367.90 

E-4 

1,891.50 

1,891.50 

1.891.50 

1,891.50 

1,891.50 

E-3  

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

1,585.50 

E-2  

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

1,331.40 

E-P  .... 

1,173.90 

1,173,90 

1,173.90 

1.173.90 

1,173.90 

1  Notwithstanding  the  basic  pay  rates  specified  in  this  table,  the  actual  rate  of  basic  pay  for  enlisted 
members  may  not  exceed  the  rate  of  pay  for  level  V  of  the  Executive  Schedule. 

^Subject  to  the  preceding  footnote,  the  rate  of  basic  pay  for  an  enlisted  member  in  this  grade  while  serv- 
ing as  Sergeant  Major  of  the  Army,  Master  Chief  Petty  Officer  of  the  Navy,  Chief  Master  Sergeant  of  the  Air 
Force.  Sergeant  Major  of  the  Marine  Corps,  or  Master  Chief  Petty  Officer  of  the  Coast  Guard,  is  $6,090.90, 
regardless  of  cumulative  years  of  service  computed  under  section  205  of  title  37,  United  States  Code. 

3  In  the  case  of  members  in  pay  grade  E-1  who  have  served  less  than  4  months  on  active  duty,  the  rate 
of  basic  pay  is  $1,086.00. 

(c)  Increase  in  Basic  Pay  for  Members  of  the  Uniformed  Services  Not  in 
THE  Armed  Forces. — Effective  on  January  1,  2004,  the  monthly  basic  pay  for  mem- 
bers of  the  uniformed  services  not  in  the  armed  forces  is  increased  by  2.0  percent. 

SEC.  602.  HOUSING  ALLOWANCE  FOR  EACH  MARRIED  PARTNER  WHEN  BOTH  ARE  ON  SEA 
DUTY  AND  THERE  ARE  NO  OTHER  DEPENDENTS. 

Subparagraph  (C)  of  subsection  403(f)(2)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is 
amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"(C)  Notwithstanding  section  421  of  this  title,  two  members  of  the  uniformed 
services  in  a  pay  grade  below  pay  grade  E-6  who  are  married  to  each  other,  have 
no  other  dependents,  and  are  simultaneously  assigned  to  sea  duty  are  each  entitled 
to  a  basic  allowance  for  housing  during  the  period  of  such  simultaneous  sea  duty. 
The  amount  of  each  member's  allowance  shall  be  based  on  the  without  dependents 
rate  for  the  pay  grade  of  the  member.". 


XXXI 

SEC.  603.  AMENDMENT  TO  BASIC  PAY  FOR  CERTAIN  COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS  WITH  PRIOR 
SERVICE  AS  AN  ENLISTED  MEMBER  OR  WARRANT  OFFICER. 

Section  203(d)(2)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 
"(2)  Service  to  be  taken  into  account  for  purposes  of  computing  basic  pay  under 
paragraph  (1)  is  as  follows: 

"(A)  Active  service  as  a  warrant  officer  or  as  a  warrant  officer  and  an  en- 
listed member. 

"(B)  Service  as  a  warrant  officer,  as  an  enlisted  member,  or  as  a  warrant 
officer  and  an  enlisted  member,  for  which  at  least  1,460  points  have  been  cred- 
ited to  the  officer  for  the  purposes  of  section  12732(a)(2)  or  title  10.". 

Subtitle  B — Bonuses  and  Special  and  Incentive  Pays 

SEC.  611.  INCREASE  MAXIMUM  AMOUNT  OF  SELECTIVE  REENLISTMENT  BONUS. 

Section  308(a)(2)(B)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking 
"$60,000"  and  inserting  "$90,000". 

SEC.  612.  MAKING  ALL  WARRANT  OFFICERS  ELIGIBLE  FOR  ACCESSION  BONUS  FOR  NEW  OF- 
FICERS IN  CRITICAL  SKILLS. 

Section  324  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (a),  by  inserting  "or  an  appointment"  after  "commission"; 
and 

(2)  in  subsection  (f),  by  inserting  "or  an  appointment"  after  "commission". 

SEC.  613.  INCENTIVE  BONUS:  LATERAL  CONVERSION  BONUS  FOR  CONVERTING  TO  UNDER- 
MANNED MILITARY  OCCUPATIONAL  SPECIALTIES. 

(a)  Bonus  Authorized. — Chapter  5  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended 
by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§326.  Incentive  bonus:  lateral  conversion  bonus  for  converting  to  under- 
manned military  occupational  specialties 

"(a)  Authority  and  Eligibility  Requirements. — 

"(1)  The  Secretary  concerned  may  pay  a  bonus  to  a  member  of  the  armed 
forces  who  agrees  to  serve  in  a  military  occupational  specialty,  rating  or  other 
military  specialty  defined  by  the  member's  armed  force,  that  is  designated  by 
the  Secretary  concerned  as  undermanned  for  purposes  of  this  bonus. 

"(2)  A  bonus  may  only  be  paid  under  this  section  to  a  member  who — 
"(A)  is  entitled  to  basic  pay; 
"(B)  is  serving  in  pay  grade  E-6  (with  less  than  10  years  of  service) 

or  E-5  and  below  (regardless  of  years  of  service);  and 

"(C)  agrees  to  serve  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  two  years  in  a  military 

occupational  specialty,  rating  or  other  military  specialty  designated  by  the 

Secretary  concerned  as  undermanned  for  the  purposes  of  this  bonus. 
"(b)  Amount  and  Payment  of  Bonus. — 

"(1)  A  bonus  under  this  section  may  not  exceed  $4,000. 

"(2)  Any  bonus  payable  under  this  section  shall  be  disbursed  in  one  lump 
sum  pajrment  when  the  member's  conversion  to  the  new  military  specialty  is  ap- 
proved by  the  personnel  chief  of  the  member's  armed  force,  or  his  designee. 
"(c)  Relationship  to  Other  Pay  and  Allowances. — A  bonus  paid  to  a  member 
under  this  section  is  in  addition  to  any  other  pay  and  allowances  to  which  the  mem- 
ber is  entitled. 

"(d)  Repayment  of  Bonus. — 

"(1)  A  member  who  receives  a  bonus  payment  under  this  section  and  who 
voluntarily  or  through  misconduct,  fails  to  serve  for  the  required  period  in  the 
undermanned  military  occupational  specialty,  rating  or  other  military  specialty 
defined  by  the  armed  force  for  which  the  bonus  was  paid,  shall  refund  to  the 
United  States  an  amount  that  bears  the  same  ratio  to  the  amount  of  the  bonus 
paid  to  the  member  as  the  period  that  the  member  failed  to  serve  bears  to  the 
total  period  for  which  the  bonus  was  paid. 

"(2)  An  obligation  to  reimburse  the  United  States  imposed  under  paragraph 
(1)  is,  for  all  purposes,  a  debt  owed  to  the  United  States. 

"(3)  A  discharge  in  bankruptcy  under  title  11  that  is  entered  less  than  five 
years  after  the  termination  of  service  for  which  a  bonus  was  paid  under  this 
section  shall  not  discharge  the  person  receiving  such  bonus  payment  fi*om  the 
debt  arising  under  paragraph  ( 1 ). 

"(4)  Under  regulations  prescribed  pursuant  to  subsection  (e),  the  Secretary 
concerned  may  waive,  in  whole  or  in  part,  an  obligation  to  reimburse  the  United 
States  imposed  under  paragraph  (1)  when  the  Secretary  determines  that  recov- 


XXXII 

ery  would  be  against  equity  and  good  conscience  or  would  be  contrary  to  the 

best  interests  of  the  United  States. 

"(e)  Regulations. — The  Secretaries  concerned  shall  prescribe  regulations  to 
carry  out  this  section.  Regulations  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  a  military  depart- 
ment shall  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  Defense. 

"(f)  Termination  of  Bonus  Authority. — No  bonus  may  be  paid  under  this  sec- 
tion with  respect  to  any  lateral  conversion  approved  after  September  30  of  the  third 
fiscal  year  that  began  after  the  date  of  enactment  of  this  section.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"326.  Incentive  bonus:  lateral  conversion  bonus  for  converting  to  undermanned  military  occupational  special- 
ties.". 

SEC.  614.  EXTENDING  HOSTILE  FIRE  AND  IMMINENT  DANGER  PAY  TO  RESERVE  COMPONENT 
MEMBERS  ON  INACTIVE  DUTY. 

Section  310  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (a),  by  inserting  "under  section  204,  or  to  compensation 
under  section  206  (as  provided  in  subsection  (b)(2)),  of  this  title,"  after  "basic 
pay";  and 

(2)  in  subsection  (b)(2),  by  inserting  ",  including  a  member  who  is  entitled 
to  compensation  under  section  206  of  this  title  if  performing  inactive  duty  in 
an  area  that  has  not  been  designated  as  an  imminent  danger  area  or  has  not 
been  under  hostile  fire  but  comes  under  hostile  fire  or  an  explosion  of  hostile 
mines  during  such  inactive  duty  for  training  period,"  after  "reserve  component". 

SEC.  615.  EXPANDED  EDUCATIONAL  ASSISTANCE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CADETS  AND  MIDSHIPMEN 
RECEIVING  ROTC  SCHOLARSHIPS. 

(a)  Financial  Assistance  Program  for  Service  on  Active  Duty. — Section 
2107(c)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  follow- 
ing new  paragraph: 

"(3)(A)  In  the  case  of  any  cadet  or  midshipman  eligible  to  receive  financial 
assistance  as  provided  under  paragraph  (1)  or  (2),  the  Secretary  of  the  military 
department  concerned  may  pay  room  and  board  expenses  for  such  cadet  or  mid- 
shipman, and  other  expenses  required  by  the  educational  institution,  in  lieu  of 
all  or  part  of  the  financial  assistance  described  in  paragraph  (1). 

"(B)  The  total  amount  of  financial  assistance,  including  the  payment  of 
room  and  board  and  other  educational  expenses,  provided  to  a  cadet  or  mid- 
shipman in  an  academic  year  under  this  subsection  may  not  exceed  an  amount 
equal  to  the  amount  that  could  be  provided  as  financial  assistance  for  such 
cadet  or  midshipman  under  paragraph  (1)  or  (2),  or  other  amount  determined 
by  the  Secretary  concerned,  without  regard  to  whether  room  and  board  and 
other  educational  expenses  for  such  cadet  or  midshipman  are  paid  under  this 
paragraph.". 

(b)  Financial  Assistance  Program  for  Service  in  Troop  Program  Units. — 
Section  2107a(c)  of  such  title  is  amended — 

(1)  by  inserting  "(1)"  after  "(c)";  and 

(2)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(2)(A)  In  the  case  of  any  cadet  eligible  to  receive  financial  assistance  as 
provided  under  paragraph  (1),  the  Secretary  of  the  military  department  con- 
cerned may  pay  room  and  board  expenses  for  such  cadet,  and  other  expenses 
required  by  the  educational  institution,  in  lieu  of  all  or  part  of  the  financial  as- 
sistance described  in  paragraph  (1). 

"(B)  The  total  amount  of  financial  assistance,  including  the  payment  of 
room  and  board  and  any  other  educational  expenses,  provided  to  a  cadet  in  an 
academic  year  under  this  subsection  may  not  exceed  an  amount  equal  to  the 
amount  that  could  be  provided  as  financial  assistance  for  such  cadet  under 
paragraph  (1),  or  other  amount  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Army,  with- 
out regard  to  whether  the  room  and  board  and  other  educational  expenses  for 
such  cadet  are  paid  under  this  paragraph.". 

SEC.  616.  NOTICE  AND  WAIT  PROVISION  CONCERNING  CRITICAL  SKILLS  RETENTION  BONUS. 

Section  323(b)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  paragraph 

(2). 

SEC.  617.  EXPANSION  OF  OVERSEAS  TOUR  EXTENSION  INCENTIVE  PROGRAM  BENEFITS  TO 
OFFICERS. 

(a)  Rest  and  Recuperative  Absence. — 

(1)  Section  705  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 
(A)  by  striking  "enlisted"  in  the  section  heading;  and 


XXXIII 

(B)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "an  enlisted"  and  inserting  "a". 
(2)  The  item  relating  to  such  section  in  the  table  of  sections  at  the  begin- 
ning of  chapter  40  of  such  title  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"705.  Rest  and  recuperative  absence  for  qualified  members  extending  duty  at  designated  locations  overseas.". 

(b)  Special  Pay  or  Bonus. — 

(1)  Section  314  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended— 

(A)  by  striking  "enlisted"  in  the  section  heading; 

(B)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "an  enlisted"  and  inserting  "a";  and 

(C)  in  subsection  (b),  by  striking  "an  enlisted"  and  inserting  "a". 

(2)  The  item  relating  to  such  section  in  the  table  of  sections  at  the  begin- 
ning of  chapter  5  of  such  title  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"314.  Special  pay  or  bonus:  qualified  members  extending  duty  at  designated  locations  overseas.". 

SEC.  618.  ONE-YEAR  EXTENSION  OF  CERTAIN  BONUS  AND  SPECIAL  PAY  AUTHORITIES  FOR 
RESERVE  FORCES. 

(a)  Special  Pay  for  Health  Professionals  in  Critically  Short  Wartime 
Specialties. — Section  302g(f)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  strik- 
ing out  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(b)  Selected  Reserve  Reenlistment  Bonus. — Section  308b(f)  of  such  title  is 
amended  by  striking  out  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(c)  Selected  Reserve  Enlistment  Bonus. — Section  308c(e)  of  such  title  is 
amended  by  striking  out  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(d)  Special  Pay  for  Enlisted  Members  Assigned  to  Certain  High  Priority 
Units. — Section  308d(c)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  out  "December  31, 
2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(e)  Selected  Reserve  Affiliation  Bonus. — Section  308e(e)  of  such  title  is 
amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2001"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(f)  Ready  Reserve  Enlistment  and  Reenlistment  Bonus. — Section  308h(g)  of 
such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31, 
2004". 

(g)  Prior  Service  Reenlistment  Bonus. — Section  308i(f)  of  such  title  is 
amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(h)  Repayment  of  Education  Loans  for  Certain  Health  Professionals 
Who  Serve  in  the  Selected  Reserve. — Section  16302(d)  of  title  10,  United  States 
Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "January  1,  2004"  and  inserting  "January  1,  2005". 

SEC  619.  one-year  EXTENSION  OF  SPECIAL  PAY  AND  BONUS  AUTHORITIES  FOR  NUCLEAR 

officers. 

(a)  Special  Pay  for  Nuclear-Qualified  Officers  Extending  Period  of  Ac- 
tive Service. — Section  312(e)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  strik- 
ing "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(b)  Nuclear  Career  Accession  Bonus. — Section  312b(c)  of  such  title  is 
amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(c)  Nuclear  Career  Annual  Incentive  Bonus. — Section  312c(d)  of  such  title 
is  amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

sec.  620.  ONE-YEAR  EXTENSION  OF  AUTHORITIES  RELATING  TO  PAYMENT  OF  OTHER  BO- 
NUSES. 

(a)  Aviation  Officer  Retention  Bonus. — Section  301b(a)  of  title  37,  United 
States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December 
31,  2004". 

(b)  Reenlistment  Bonus  for  Active  Members. — Section  308(g)  of  such  title  is 
amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(c)  Enlistment  Bonus. — Section  309(e)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking 
"December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(d)  Retention  Bonus  for  Members  Qualified  in  a  Critical  Military 
Skill. — Section  323(i)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and 
inserting  "December  31,  2004". 

(e)  Accession  Bonus  for  New  Officers  in  Critical  Skills.— Section  324(g) 
of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "December  31,  2003"  and  inserting  "December 
31,  2004". 


XXXIV 

Subtitle  C — Travel  and  Transportation  Allowances 

SEC.  621.  SHIPMENT  OF  A  PRIVATELY  OWNED  MOTOR  VEHICLE  WITHIN  THE  CONTINENTAL 
UNITED  STATES. 

(a)  Authority  To  Procure  Contract  for  Transportation  of  Motor  Vehi- 
cle.—Section  2634  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end 
the  following  new  subsection: 

"(i)  In  the  case  of  a  change  of  permanent  station  described  in  clause  (A)  or  (B) 
of  subsection  (h)(1)  of  this  section,  the  Secretary  concerned  may  authorize  the  mem- 
ber to  arrange  shipment  of  the  motor  vehicle  in  heu  of  transportation  at  the  expense 
of  the  United  States.  The  member  may  be  paid  a  monetary  allowance  in  heu  of 
transportation  as  estabhshed  under  section  404(d)(1)  of  title  37  and  the  member  is 
responsible  for  any  transportation  costs  in  excess  of  such  allowance.". 

(b)  Allowance  for  Self-Procurement  of  Transportation  of  Motor  Vehi- 
cle.—Subparagraph  (B)  of  section  406(b)(1)  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is 
amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sentence:  "In  the  case  of  the  trans- 
portation of  a  motor  vehicle  arranged  by  the  member  under  subsection  (i)  of  section 
2634  of  title  10,  the  member,  who  has  proof  of  shipment,  may  be  paid  a  monetary 
allowance  in  lieu  of  transportation  as  established  under  section  404(d)(1)  of  this 
title.". 

Subtitle  D— Other  Matters 

SEC  631.  PERMIT  NON-SCHOLARSHIP  SENIOR  ROTC  SOPHOMORES  TO  VOLUNTARILY  CON- 
TRACT AND  RECEIVE  SUBSISTENCE  ALLOWANCE. 

Section  209  of  title  37,  United  States  Code,  is  amended— 

(1)  by  redesignating  subsections  (c)  and  (d)  as  subsections  (d)  and  (e),  re- 
spectively; and 

(2)  by  inserting  after  subsection  (b)  the  following  new  subsection  (c): 

"(c)  Pilot  Program  for  Contract  of  Non-Scholarship  Senior  ROTC  Mem- 
bers.— (1)  An  ehgible  member  of  the  Selected  Reserve  Officers'  Training  Corps  is 
entitled  to  a  monthly  subsistence  allowance  at  a  rate  prescribed  under  subsection 
(a)  for  a  maximum  of  twenty  months. 

"(2)  To  be  eligible  to  receive  a  subsistence  allowance  under  this  subsection, 
a  person  must — 

"(A)  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States; 

"(B)  enlist  in  an  armed  force  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  military  department  concerned  for  the  period  prescribed  by  the  Sec- 
retary; 

"(C)  contract,  with  the  consent  of  his  parent  or  guardian  if  he  is  a 
minor,  with  the  Secretary  of  the  military  department  concerned,  or  his  des- 
ignated representative,  to  serve  for  the  period  required  by  the  program; 

"(D)  agree  in  writing  that  he  will  accept  an  appointment,  if  offered,  as 
a  commissioned  officer  in  the  Army,  Navy,  Air  Force,  or  Marine  Corps,  as 
the  case  may  be,  and  that  he  will  serve  in  the  armed  forces  for  the  period 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary; 

"(E)  complete  successfully  the  first  year  of  a  four-year  Senior  Reserve 
Officers'  Training  Corps  course; 

"(F)  not  be  eligible  for  advanced  training  under  section  2104  of  title  10; 
"(G)  not  be  appointed  imder  section  2107  of  title  10;  and 
"(H)  execute  a  certificate  of  loyalty  in  such  form  as  the  Secretary  of  De- 
fense prescribes  or  take  a  loyalty  oath  as  prescribed  by  the  Secretary. 
"(3)  This  program  will  run  as  a  pilot  program  for  the  period  of  three  years 
beginning  in  January  2004.  The  Secretary  of  Defense  will  report  to  the  Office 
of  Management  and  Budget  annually  on  the  participation  rates  for  the  program 
with  a  cost  evaluation  of  the  program's  effectiveness.  Such  annual  reports  will 
be  due  by  December  31  for  each  of  the  three  years.". 

TITLE  VII— HEALTH  CARE  PROVISIONS 

SEC.  701.  REVISION  OF  DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  MEDICARE  ELIGIBLE  RETIREE  HEALTH 
CARE  FUND  TO  PERMIT  MORE  ACCURATE  ACTUARIAL  VALUATIONS. 

Section  1115(c)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end 
the  following  new  paragraph: 


XXXV 

"(6)  In  determining  single  level  dollar  amounts  in  subparagraphs  (1)(A)  and 
(1)(B),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may,  if  the  Secretary  determines  that  it  would 
produce  a  more  accurate  and  appropriate  actuarial  valuation,  determine  a  separate 
single  level  dollar  amount  under  either  or  both  subparagraphs  for  any  individual 
participating  uniformed  service.  If  the  Secretary  makes  any  such  determination,  the 
Secretary  (or  in  the  case  of  a  participating  uniformed  service  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  another  administering  Secretary,  the  administering  Secretary  concerned)  shall 
make  corresponding  calculations  under  section  1116(a)  of  this  title  for  the  contribu- 
tions applicable  to  the  affected  uniformed  services.". 

SEC.  702.  APPLICABILITY  OF  THE  FEDERAL  ADVISORY  COMMITTEE  ACT  TO  THE  PHARMACY 
AND  THERAPEUTICS  COMMITTEE. 

Section  1074g(b)(l)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the 
end  the  following  new  sentence:  "The  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act  (5  U.S.C. 
App.)  shall  not  apply  to  the  Pharmacy  and  Therapeutics  Committee.". 

TITLE  VIII— ACQUISITION  POLICY,  ACQUISITION 
MANAGEMENT,  AND  RELATED  MATTERS 

Subtitle  A — ^Acquisition  Policy  and  Management 

SEC.  801.  MILESTONE  AUTHORIZATION  OF  SELECTED  DEFENSE  ACQUISITION  PROGRAMS. 

(a)  In  General. — (1)  Chapter  144  of  title  10,  United  States  Code  is  amended 
by  adding  after  section  2435  the  following  new  section: 

"§  2436.  Milestone  authorization 

"(a)  Designation  of  Participating  Programs. — (1)  The  Secretary  of  Defense 
may  designate  defense  acquisition  programs  in  each  military  department  to  be  con- 
sidered for  milestone  authorization  of  appropriations  under  subsection  (c). 

"(2)  The  Secretary  may  designate  a  defense  acquisition  program  under  para- 
graph (1)  only  if  the  program — 

"(A)  is  ready  to  proceed  into  system  development  and  demonstration  or  pro- 
duction and  deployment,  or 

"(B)  is  in  either  system  development  and  demonstration  or  production  and 

deployment. 

"(b)  Submission  of  Baseline  Descriptions. — Not  later  than  the  end  of  the  90- 
day  period  beginning  on  the  date  that  a  defense  acquisition  program  is  designated 
under  subsection  (a),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  shall  request  from  Congress  that 
funds  be  authorized  to  be  appropriated  in  a  single  amount  sufficient  to  carry  out 
the  acquisition  phase  for  which  the  baseline  description  is  submitted. 

"(c)  Milestone  Authorization. — Congress  shall  authorize  the  appropriation  of 
funds  for  the  system  development  and  demonstration,  or  the  production  and  deploy- 
ment of  a  program  designated  by  the  Secretary  of  Defense  under  subsection  (a)  in 
a  single  amount  sufficient  to  carry  out  that  phase,  provided  that  such  period  for 
which  funds  may  be  obligated  may  not  exceed  six  years. 

"(d)  No  Effect  on  Statutory  and  Regulatory  Requirements. — Granting 
milestone  authorization  does  not  change  any  other  statutory  or  regulatory  require- 
ments relating  to  defense  acquisition  programs.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  after  the  item  relating  to  section  2435  the  following  new 
item: 

"2436.  Milestone  authorization.". 
SEC.  802.  CONTRACT  CLOSEOUT. 

(a)  In  General. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  shall  have  the  authority  to  promul- 
gate regulations  to  settle  the  financial  accounts  for  contracts  executed  prior  to  Sep- 
tember 30,  1996  that  are  administratively  complete  and  for  which  any  unreconciled 
balance,  either  positive  or  negative,  is  less  than  $100,000. 

(b)  Finality  of  Decision. — Decisions  carried  out  in  accordance  with  these  regu- 
lations shall  be  final  and  conclusive  upon  the  accounting  officers  of  the  United 
States. 

SEC.  803.  CLARIFICATION  OF  REQUIREMENT  TO  BUY  CERTAIN  ARTICLES  FROM  AMERICAN 
SOURCES;  EXCEPTIONS. 

Section  2533a  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 
(1)  in  subsection  (a)— 


XXXVI 

(A)  by  striking  "subsections  (c)  through  (h)"  and  inserting  "subsections 
(b)  through  (i)";  and 

(B)  by  striking  "if  the  item  is  not  grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  or  pro- 
duced in  the  United  -States"; 

(2)  in  subsection  (b),  by  amending  paragraphs  (1)  through  (3)  to  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

"(1)  An  article  or  item  of — 

"(A)  meals  ready-to-eat  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Class  8970  unless  the 
item  is  produced  or  manufactured  in  the  United  States; 

"(B)  clothing  unless  the  item  is  grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  or  produced 
in  the  United  States; 

"(C)  tents,  tarpaulins,  or  covers  unless  the  item  is  grown,  reprocessed, 
reused,  or  produced  in  the  United  States; 

"(D)  cotton  and  other  natural  fiber  products,  woven  silk  or  woven  silk 
blends,  spun  silk  yam  for  cartridge  cloth,  synthetic  fabric  or  coated  S5m- 
thetic  fabric  (including  all  textile  fibers  and  yams  that  are  for  use  in  such 
fabrics),  canvas  products,  or  wool  (whether  in  the  form  of  fiber  or  yam  or 
contained  in  fabrics,  materials,  or  manufactured  articles)  unless  the  item  is 
grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  or  produced  in  the  United  States;  or 

"(E)  any  item  of  individual  equipment  manufactured  from  or  containing 
such  fibers,  yarns,  fabrics,  or  materials  unless  the  item  is  grown,  reproc- 
essed, reused,  or  produced  in  the  United  States; 

"(2)  Equipment  of  the  following  Federal  supply  classifications  that  contain 
a  specialty  metal  unless  the  specialty  metal  used  to  produce  or  manufacture  the 
item,  or  an  equivalent  amount  that  is  acquired  by  the  contractor  or  a  sub- 
contractor, was  smelted  in  the  United  States: 

"(A)  Weapons  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  10. 

"(B)  Nuclear  ordnance  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  11. 

"(C)  Fire  control  equipment  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  12. 

"(D)  Ammunition  and  explosives  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  13. 

"(E)  Guided  missiles  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  14. 

"(F)  Aircraft  and  related  components,  accessories,  and  equipment  listed 
in  Federal  Supply  Groups  15,  16,  and  17. 

"(G)  Space  vehicles  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  18. 

"(H)  Ships,  small  craft,  pontoons,  and  floating  docks  listed  in  Federal 
Supply  Group  19. 

"(I)  Ship  and  marine  equipment  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  20. 

"(J)  Passenger  motor  vehicles  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Class  2310. 

"(K)  Tracked  combat  vehicles  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Class  2350. 

"(L)  Engines,  turbines,  and  components  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group 
28. 
For  the  purposes  of  this  paragraph,  'specialty  metal'  means: 

"(A)  steel — 

"(i)  where  the  maximum  alloy  content  exceeds  one  or  more  of  the 

following  limits:  manganese,  1.65  percent;  silicon,  0.60  percent;  or  cop- 
per, 0.60  percent;  or 

"(ii)  that  contains  more  than  0.25  percent  of  any  of  the  following 

elements:  aluminum,  chromium,  cobalt,  columbium,  molybdenum,  nick- 
el, titanium,  tungsten,  or  vanadium; 

"(B)  metal  alloys  consisting  of  nickel,  iron-nickel,  and  cobalt  base  alloys 
containing  a  total  of  other  alloying  metals  (except  iron)  in  excess  of  10  per- 
cent; 

"(C)  titanium  and  titanium  alloys;  or 

"(D)  zirconium  and  zirconium  base  alloys;  and 
"(3)  Hand  tools  listed  in  Federal  Supply  Group  51  and  measuring  tools  list- 
ed in  Federal  Supply  Group  52  unless  the  item  is  produced  or  manufactured 
in  the  United  States."; 

(3)  in  subsection  (c) — 

(A)  by  striking  "Subsection  (a)"  and  inserting  "This  section";  and 

(B)  by  striking  "(1)  or  specialty  metals  (including  stainless  steel  flat- 
ware)"; 

(4)  in  subsection  (d) — 

(A)  in  the  catch  line  for  such  subsection,  by  striking  "Outside  the 
United  -States"  and  inserting  "In  Exigent  Circumstances"; 

(B)  by  striking  "Subsection  (a)  does  not  apply"  and  inserting  "This  sec- 
tion does  not  apply"; 

(C)  by  revising  paragraph  (1)  to  read  as  follows: 


XXXVII 

"(1)  Procurements  of  items  listed  in  subsections  (b)(1)(A),  (b)(2),  and(b)(3)  in 
support  of  contingency  operations  as  defined  in  section  101(a)(13)  of  this  title, 
and  procurements  outside  the  United   States  of  items  listed  in   subsections 
(b)(1)(B)  through  (b)(1)(E)  in  support  of  combat  operations."; 
(D)  by  revising  paragraph  (3)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(3)  Procurements  of  items  listed  in  subsections  (b)(1)(A),  (b)(2),  and  (b)(3) 
of  unusual  and  compelling  urgency  under  the  authority  of  section  2304(c)(2)  of 
this  title,  and  emergency  procurements  by  an  establishment  located  outside  the 
United  States  of  items  listed  in  subsections  (b)(1)(B)  through  (b)(1)(E)  for  the 
personnel  attached  to  such  establishment."; 

(5)  by  revising  subsection  (e)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(e)  Exception  for  Specialty  Metals  and  Chemical  Warfare  Protective 
Clothing. — (1)  This  section  does  not  apply  to  the  procurement  of  end  items  or  com- 
ponents of  equipment  listed  in  subsection  (b)(2)  if  the  specialty  metal  used  to 
produce  or  manufacture  the  item,  or  an  equivalent  amount  that  is  acquired  by  the 
contractor  or  a  subcontractor,  was  smelted  in  a  foreign  country  that  has  a  memoran- 
dum of  understanding  providing  for  reciprocal  procurement  of  defense  items  that  is 
entered  into  with  the  Department  of  Defense  in  accordance  with  section  2531  of  this 
title. 

"(2)  This  section  does  not  apply  to  the  procurement  of  chemical  warfare  protec- 
tive clothing  produced  outside  the  United  States  if — 
"(A)  such  procurement  is  necessary — 

"(i)  to  comply  with  agreements  with  foreign  governments  requiring  the 
United  States  to  purchase  supplies  from  foreign  sources  for  the  purposes  of 
offsetting  sales  made  by  the  United  States  Government  or  United  States 
firms  under  approved  programs  serving  defense  requirements;  or 

"(ii)  in  furtherance  of  agreements  with  foreign  governments  in  which 
both  such  governments  agree  to  remove  barriers  to  purchases  of  supplies 
produced  in  the  other  country  or  services  performed  by  sources  of  the  other 
country;  and 

"(B)  any  such  agreement  with  a  foreign  government  complies,  where  appli- 
cable, with  the  requirements  of  section  36  of  the  Arms  Export  Control  Act  (22 
U.S.C.  2776)  and  with  section  2457  of  this  title."; 

(6)  in  subsection  (f),  by  striking  "Subsection  (a)  does  not  preclude"  and  in- 
serting "This  section  does  not  preclude"; 

(7)  in  subsection  (g),  by  striking  "Subsection  (a)  does  not  apply"  and  insert- 
ing "This  section  does  not  apply"; 

(8)  in  subsection  (h),  by  striking  "Subsection  (a)  does  not  apply"  and  insert- 
ing "This  section  does  not  apply";  and 

(9)  in  subsection  (i) — 

(A)  by  striking  "This  section"  and  inserting  "(1)  Except  as  provided  in 
paragraph  (2),  this  section";  and 

(B)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(2)  This  section  does  not  apply  to  commercial  items,  or  components  thereof, 
that  are  hsted  in  sections  (b)(1)(A),  (b)(2),  and  (b)(3),  except  if  the  end  item  is 
specialty  metal.". 

Subtitle  B — ^Amendments  to  General  Contracting 
Authorities,  Procedures,  and  Limitations 

SEC.  811.  EXTEND  USE  OF  THE  DEFENSE  MODERNIZATION  ACCOUNT  FOR  LIFE  CYCLE  COST 
REDUCTION  INITIATIVES. 

(a)  Title  lo  Amendments. — Section  2216  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is 
amended — 

(1)  by  striking  the  catch  line  in  subsection  (c); 

(2)  by  redesignating  subsection  (c)  as  paragraph  (b)(5); 

(3)  by  inserting  after  subsection  (b)  the  following  new  subsection  (c): 

"(c)  Appropriations  for  Life  Cycle  Cost  Reduction. — (1)  Funds  are  author- 
ized to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  years  2004-2006  in  the  amount  of  $25,000,000  an- 
nually to  the  Defense  Modernization  Account  for  the  purpose  of  providing  startup 
funds  for  projects  undertaken  by  a  military  department,  Defense  Agency,  or  other 
element  of  the  Department  of  Defense  to  reduce  the  life  cycle  cost  of  new  or  existing 
systems  in  accordance  with  criteria  established  by  the  Secretary  of  Defense. 

"(2)  A  military  department,  Defense  agency,  or  other  element  of  the  Department 
of  Defense  that  receives  funds  appropriated  pursuant  to  paragraph  (1)  shall,  upon 
achieving  savings  from  such  a  project,  reimburse  the  Account  for  the  funds  pre- 


XXXVIII 

viously  received.  Funds  transferred  back  to  the  Account  pursuant  to  this  paragraph 
shall  be  available  for  funding  new  projects  under  paragraph  (1).". 

(4)  in  subsection  (d),  by  striking  "Authorized  Use  of  Funds. — Funds  avail- 
able from  the  Defense  Modernization  Account  pursuant  to  subsection  (f)  or  (g) 
may  be  used  for  the  following  purposes:"  and  inserting  "Authorized  Use  of 
Transferred  Funds. — Funds  transferred  to  the  Defense  Modernization  Account 
pursuant  to  subsection  (b)  may  be  used  for  the  following  purposes:";  and 

(5)  in  paragraph  (f)(1),  by  striking  the  sentence  beginning  with  "The  Sec- 
retary" and  inserting  "The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  transfer  funds  in  the  De- 
fense Modernization  Account  to  appropriations  available  to  the  Department  of 
Defense  for  the  purposes  set  forth  in  subsections  (c)  and  (d).". 

(b)  Extension  of  Authority.— Subsection  (c)  of  section  912  of  the  National  De- 
fense Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1996  (Public  Law  104-106;  110  Stat.  410) 
is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"(c)  Expiration  of  Authority  and  Account. — (1)  The  authority  under  section 
2216(b)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  to  transfer  funds  into  the  Defense  Mod- 
ernization Account  and  the  authorization  under  section  2216(c)  of  such  title  to  ap- 
propriate funds  to  the  Defense  Modernization  Account  shall  terminate  on  September 
30,  2006. 

"(2)  The  Defense  Modernization  Account  shall  be  closed  on  September  30,  2011, 
and  any  remaining  balance  in  the  Account  shall  be  cancelled  and  thereafter  shall 
not  be  available  for  any  purpose.". 

SEC.  812.  extension  AND  CLARIFICATION  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  CARRY  OUT  CERTAIN  PROTO- 
TYPE PROJECTS. 

Section  845  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1994 
(Public  Law  103-160;  107  Stat.  1547)  is  amended  in  subsection  (g),  by  striking  "Sep- 
tember 30,  2004"  and  inserting  "September  30,  2008". 

SEC.  813.  OTHER  TRANSACTION  AUTHORITY  FOR  MODERNIZING  LEGACY  SYSTEMS. 

Section  845(a)  of  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1994  (Pub- 
Uc  Law  103-160;  107  Stat.  1547)  is  amended  by  inserting  ",  or  are  improvements 
to  weapons  or  weapon  systems  currently  fielded  by  the  Department  of  Defense" 
after  "Department  of  Defense". 

SEC.  814.  AUTHORITY  FOR  CERTAIN  DOD  COMPONENTS  TO  AWARD  PERSONAL  SERVICES 
CONTRACTS. 

(a)  Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law,  sums  made  available  by  appro- 
priation or  otherwise  to  a  covered  component,  as  defined  in  subsection  (b),  may  be 
expended  for  personal  services  contracts  necessary  to  carry  out  the  covered  compo- 
nent's missions,  including  personal  services  without  regard  to  limitations  on  types 
of  persons  to  be  employed. 

(b)  The  term  "covered  component"  includes — 

( 1 )  any  Department  of  Defense  component  that  is  an  element  of  the  Intel- 
ligence Community,  as  defined  in  Section  3(4)  of  the  National  Security  Act  of 
1947  (50  U.S.C.  401a); 

(2)  any  element  of  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  Defense  designated  by  the 
Secretary  of  Defense  for  purposes  of  this  section;  and 

(3)  the  United  States  Special  Operations  Command  when  engaged  in  spe- 
cial operations  activities  delineated  in  10  U.S.C.  167(j)(l)-(4). 

SEC.  815.  ELIMINATION  OF  SUBCONTRACT  NOTIFICATION  REQUIREMENTS. 

Section  2306(e)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 
"(e)  Except  for  contracts  with  a  contractor  that  maintains  a  purchasing  system 
approved  by  the  cognizant  contracting  officer,  each  cost  contract  and  each  cost-plus- 
a-fixed-fee  contract  shall  require  the  contractor  to  provide  notice  to  the  agency,  prior 
to  the  award  under  a  prime  contract,  of — 

"(1)  a  cost-plus-a-fixed-fee  subcontract;  or 

"(2)  a  fixed-price  subcontract  or  purchase  order  involving  more  than  the 
greater  of — 

"(A)  the  simplified  acquisition  threshold;  or 

"(B)  five  percent  of  the  estimated  cost  of  the  prime  contract.". 

SEC.  816  .  EXCEPTION  FOR  REPLACEMENT  BALL  BEARINGS  AND  ROLLER  BEARINGS  TO  BE 
USED  IN  A  COMPONENT  OF  NON-DOMESTIC  ORIGIN. 

Section  2534(a)(5)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  inserting  be- 
fore the  period  at  the  end  the  following:  ",  other  than  ball  bearings  and  roller  bear- 
ings to  be  used  in  an  end  product  or  a  component  of  non-domestic  origin". 


XXXIX 
SEC.  817.  INDUSTRY  ASSIGNfMENT  PROGRAM. 

(a)  In  General. — Chapter  81  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  in- 
serting after  section  1599c  the  following  new  section: 

"§  1599d.  Government  industry  assignment  program 

"(a)  Authority. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  establish  a  pilot  program  for 
the  temporary  assignment  of  non-governmental  personnel  who  are  employed  in  the 
private  sector  to  the  Department  of  Defense.  The  Secretary  may  promulgate  regula- 
tions for  such  purpose. 

"(b)  Purpose. — This  program  is  designed  to  improve  the  Department's  acquisi- 
tion-related processes  and  procedures.  It  would  accomplish  this  through  an  infusion 
of  new  and  modern  ideas  by  the  temporary  assignment  in  the  Department  of  non- 
governmental personnel  who  are  employed  by  private  industry.  The  private  sector 
employees  would  be  compensated  by  their  private  employer  yet  would  be  subject 
generally  to  governmental  requirements  that  are  in  force  for  Federal  employees.  The 
Department  would  provide  the  private  employer  the  benefit  of  a  career  enhancement 
for  its  private  sector  employees  who  participate  in  the  program. 

"(c)  Limitations. — (1)  This  program  is  limited  to  those  individuals  in  private 
sector  positions  whose  duties,  as  determined  by  the  Secretary,  are  comparable  to  de- 
fense acquisition  positions. 

"(2)  Each  such  assignment  shall  be  based  on  a  written  agreement  between  the 
Department  of  Defense,  the  private  sector  employer,  and  the  employee  concerned, 
which  shall  include  nondisclosure  provisions  addressing  the  use  and  disclosure  of 
classified  and  unclassified  information  in  the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  the 
Department  of  Defense  that  has  not  been  released  to  the  public  and  which  shall  also 
include  the  Federal  laws  and  penalties  applicable  to  the  disclosure  of  classified  in- 
formation, including,  but  not  limited  to  section  798  of  title  18,  United  States  Code. 
"(3)  During  the  period  of  an  assignment  made  pursuant  to  this  section,  a  pri- 
vate sector  employee — 

"(A)  is  not  entitled  to  pay  from  the  Department  of  Defense,  except,  as  deter- 
mined by  the  Secretary  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  to  the  extent  that  the  pay  re- 
ceived from  the  private  sector  employer  is  less  than  the  appropriate  rate  of  pay 
which  the  duties  would  warrant  under  the  applicable  pay  provisions  of  this  title, 
title  5,  United  States  Code,  or  other  applicable  authority; 

"(B)  is  deemed  an  employee  of  the  Department  of  Defense,  subject  to  section 
7353  of  title  5,  United  States  Code;  sections  201,  203,  205,  207,  208,  209,  219, 
602,  603,  606,  607,  610,  643,  654,  1905,  1913  and  other  provisions  of  title  18, 
United  States  Code,  not  specifically  exempted  herein;  sections  1343,  1344,  and 
1349(b)  of  title  31,  United  States  Code;  the  Federal  Tort  Claims  Act  (28  U.S.C. 
2671  et  seq.);  any  other  Federal  tort  liability  statute;  section  27  of  the  Office 
of  Federal  Procurement  Policy  Act,  as  amended  (41  U.S.C.  423)  and  regulations 
implementing  that  Act;  the  Ethics  in  Government  Act  of  1978  (5  U.S.C.  App.) 
and  regulations  implementing  that  Act;  and  any  other  provisions  of  Federal  law 
not  specifically  exempted  herein.  Notwithstanding  section  209  of  title  18,  United 
States  Code,  the  private  sector  employer  may  pay,  contribute  to,  or  supplement 
the  salary  or  other  benefits  of  such  private  sector  employee  (who  may  accept 
such  pay,  contributions,  and  benefits),  subject  to  the  terms  of  the  written  pri- 
vate sector  employee  assignment  agreement  required  in  paragraph  (c)(2)  above; 
"(C)  is  also  deemed  an  employee  of  his  or  her  private  sector  employer  for 
purposes  of  section  208  of  title  18,  United  States  Code; 

"(D)  is  subject  to  such  regulations  that  the  Secretary  may  prescribe,  which 
shall  incorporate  by  reference  executive  branch  standards  of  ethical  conduct  and 
any  authorized  agency  supplemental  standards  of  conduct  and  which  shall  in- 
clude as  a  minimum — 

"(i)  limitations  on  the  number  of  participants  (no  more  than  400); 
"(ii)  length  of  temporary  assignments  (up  to  two  years); 
"(iii)  protection  of  government  information; 

"(iv)  procedures  for  avoidance  of  conflicts  of  interest,  including  selection 
of  program  priorities  and  funding  decisions  that  may  involve  the  assignee's 
employer  or  its  competitors,  and  avoidance  of  the  appearance  of  conflicts  of 
interest;  and 

"(v)  exclusions  from  the  performance  of  inherently  governmental  func- 
tions, such  as  policy-making  and  supervision  of  government  employees;  and 

"(vi)  methodology  and  criteria  for  evaluation  of  the  pilot;  and 
"(E)  is  not  deemed  to  be  an  employee  for  purposes  of  federal  employee  pay 
and  benefits  under  title  5,  United  States  Code,  except  as  provided  for  under  this 
subsection. 
"(d)  Workers  Compensation  Coverage. — 


XL 

"(1)  A  private  sector  employee  assigned  to  the  Department  of  Defense  pur- 
suant to  this  section  shall  not  be  deemed  an  employee  of  the  United  States  for 
the  purposes  of  Chapter  81  of  title  5,  United  States  Code,  (relating  to  compensa- 
tion for  injury). 

"(2)  Notwithstanding  any  other  law,  the  United  States,  any  instrumentality 
of  the  United  States;  or  an  employee,  agent,  or  assign  of  the  United  States  shall 
not  be  liable  to: 

"(A)  a  private  sector  employee  assigned  to  the  Department  of  Defense 
pursuant  to  this  section; 

"(B)  such  employee's  legal  representative,  spouse,  dependents,  survivors 
and  next  of  kin;  and 

"(C)  any  other  person,  including  any  third  party  as  to  whom  such  em- 
ployee, or  his  or  her  legal  representative,  spouse,  dependents,  survivors,  or 
next  of  kin,  has  a  cause  of  action  arising  out  of  an  injury  or  death  sustained 
in  the  performance  of  duty  pursuant  to  an  assignment  under  this  section, 
otherwise  entitled  to  recover  damages  from  the  United  States,  any  instru- 
mentality of  the  United  States,  or  any  employee,  agent,  or  assign  of  the 
United  States — 
with  respect  to  any  injury  or  death  suffered  by  a  private  sector  employee  sus- 
tained in  the  performance  of  duty  pursuant  to  an  assignment  under  this  section. 
"(e)  Definitions.— In  this  section: 

"(1)  The  term  'private  sector  employer'  means  a  corporation,  partnership, 
sole  proprietorship,  or  other  entity  operated  on  a  for-profit  basis.  It  may,  at  the 
option  of  the  Secretary,  also  include  'other  organizations'  as  defined  in  section 
3371  of  title  5. 

"(2)  The  term  'acquisition  position'  has  the  same  meaning  as  in  section 
1721(b)  of  this  title. 

"(3)  The  term  'assignment'  means  an  assignment  under  an  arrangement 
made  pursuant  to  the  section  under  which  a  private  sector  employee  is  assigned 
to  the  Department  of  Defense  by  being  appointed  without  regard  to  the  provi- 
sions of  title  5,  United  States  Code,  governing  appointments  in  the  competitive 
service  or  being  deemed  to  be  detailed  to  the  Department  of  Defense. 

"(4)  The  term  'government  employee'  means  an  'employee'  as  defined  in  sec- 
tion 2105  of  title  5. 

"(f)  Expiration. — The  Secretary  may  not  assign  non-governmental  personnel 
who  are  employed  in  the  private  sector  to  the  Department  of  Defense  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  section  after  the  last  day  of  the  fifth  year  beginning  with  the  effective 
date  of  this  Act.".- 

(b)  Reporting  Requirement. — During  the  fourth  year  after  the  enactment  of 
this  Act,  the  Secretary  of  Defense,  with  input  from  the  Inspector  General  of  the  De- 
partment of  Defense,  and  in  consultation  with  the  Director  of  the  Office  of  Personnel 
Management,  shall  evaluate  the  program  authorized  under  this  section  and  prepare 
a  report  for  the  President  that  includes  an  analysis  of  the  use  of  the  authorities  of 
this  section,  including  conflict  of  interest  standards,  and  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
assignments  made  pursuant  to  this  section. 

(c)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter 81  is  amended  by  inserting  after  the  item  relating  to  section  2331  the  following 
new  item: 

"1599d.  Government  industry  assignment  program.''. 

Subtitle  C — ^Acquisition-Related  Reports  and  Other  Matters 

SEC.  821.  elimination  OF  THE  REQUIREMENT  TO  FURNISH  WRITTEN  ASSURANCES  OF  TECH- 
NICAL DATA  CONFORMITY. 

Section  2320(b)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  by  striking  paragraph  (7);  and 

(2)  by  redesignating  paragraphs  (8)  and  (9)  as  paragraphs  (7)  and  (8),  re- 
spectively. 

SEC.  822.  CONVERSIONS  OF  COMMERCIAL  ACTIVITIES. 

(a)  Changes  to  Elements  of  Analysis. — Paragraph  (3)(A)  of  section  2461(b) 
of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

( 1 )  by  striking  "of  the  cost"; 

(2)  by  striking  "sa'vings"  and  inserting  "the  best  value"; 

(3)  by  redesignating  subsection  (iii)  as  subsection  (iv);  and 

(4)  by  inserting  after  clause  (ii)  the  following  new  clause  (iii): 


XLI 

"(iii)  Benefits  in  addition  to  price  that  warrant  performance  of  the  function 
by  a  source  at  a  cost  higher  than  that  of  performance  by  Department  of  Defense 
civiUan  employees.". 

(b)  Contracting  If  Best  Value. — Section  2462(a)  of  such  title  is  amended  by 
striking  "such  a  source  can  provide  such  supply  or  service  to  the  Department  at  a 
cost  that  is  lower  (after  including  any  cost  differential  required  by  law,  Executive 
order,  or  regulation)  than  the  cost  at  which  the  Department  can  provide  the  same 
supply  or  service"  and  inserting  "performance  by  that  source  represents  the  best 
value  to  the  Government,  determined  in  accordance  with  the  competition  require- 
ments of  0MB  Circular  A-76.". 

SEC.  823.  MAKE  PERMANENT  THE  AUTHORITY  TO  ENTER  INTO  CERTAIN  PERSONAL  SERVICES 
CONTRACTS. 

Section  1091(a)(2)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "The 
Secretary  may  not  enter  into  a  contract  under  this  paragraph  after  December  31, 
2003.". 

TITLE  IX— DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  ORGANIZATION 

AND  MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle  A — Duties  and  Functions  of  Department  of  Defense 

Officers 

SEC.  901.  ALTERNATIVE  AUTHORITY  FOR  ACQUISITION  AND  IMPROVEMENT  OF  MILITARY 
HOUSING. 

(a)  Unit  Size  and  Type.— Section  2880(b)(2)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is 
amended  by  striking  "unless  the  unit  is  located  on  a  military  installation";  and 

(b)  Department  of  Defense  Housing  Fund. — (1)  Section  2883  of  title  10, 
United  States  Code  is  amended — 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (a),  (b),  and  (c); 

(B)  by  inserting  the  following  new  subsections  (a)  and  (b): 

"(a)  Establishment. — There  is  hereby  established  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury 
the  Department  of  Defense  Housing  Improvement  Fund. 

"(b)  Credits  to  Funds. — There  shall  be  credited  to  the  Department  of  Defense 
Housing  Improvement  Fund  the  following: 

"(1)  Amounts  authorized  for  and  appropriated  to  that  Fund. 

"(2)  Subject  to  subsection  (e),  any  amounts  that  the  Secretary  of  Defense 
transfers,  in  such  amounts  as  provided  in  appropriation  Acts  to  that  Fund  from 
amounts  authorized  and  appropriated  to  the  Department  of  Defense  for  the  ac- 
quisition or  construction  of  military  family  housing  or  military  unaccompanied 
housing. 

"(3)  Proceeds  from  the  conveyance  or  lease  of  property  or  facilities  under 
section  2878  of  this  title  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  activities  under  this 
subchapter  with  respect  to  military  family  housing  or  military  unaccompanied 
housing. 

"(4)  Income  derived  from  any  activities  under  this  subchapter  with  respect 
to  military  family  housing  or  military  unaccompanied  housing,  including  income 
and  gains  realized  from  investments  under  section  2875  of  this  title  and  any 
return  of  capital  invested  as  part  of  such  investments. 

"(5)  Any  amounts  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  transfers  to  that  Fund 
pursuant  to  section  2814(i)(3)  of  this  title,  subject  to  the  restrictions  on  the  use 
of  the  transferred  amounts  specified  in  that  section."; 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsections  (d),  (e),  (f),  and  (g)  as  (c),  (d),  (e),  and  (f) 
respectively; 

(D)  in  the  newly  redesignated  subsection  (c) — 
(i)  by  striking  "Family  in  paragraph  (1); 
(ii)  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(iii)  by  redesignating  paragraph  (3)  as  (2); 

(E)  in  the  newly  redesignated  subsection  (e)  by  striking  "a  Fund  under 
paragraph  (IKB)  or  (2)(B)  of  subsection  (c)"  and  inserting  "the  Fund  under  para- 
graph (2)  of  subsection  (b)"; 

(F)  in  subsection  (f)  as  relettered  by  subparagraph  (C)  of  this  paragraph — 
(i)     by     striking     "$850,000,000"     in     paragraph     (1)     and     inserting 

"$1,700,000,000";  and 

(ii)   by    striking   "$150,000,000"    in    paragraph   (2)    and   inserting   — 
"$300,000,000"; 


XLII 

(2)  Section  2871(6)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking 
"Family  Housing  Improvement  Fund  or  the  Department  of  Defense  Military  Unac- 
companied Housing  Improvement  Fund"  ana  inserting  "Housing  Improvement 
Fund";  and 

(3)  Section  2875(e)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "Fam- 
ily Housing  Improvement  Fvmd  or  the  Department  of  Defense  Military  Unaccom- 
panied Housing  Improvement  Fund"  and  inserting  "Housing  Improvement  Fund". 

Subtitle  B — Space  Activities 

SEC.  911.  AUTHORIZE  PROVISION  OF  SPACE  SURVEILLANCE  NETWORK  SERVICES  TO  NON- 
UNITED  STATES  GOVERNMENTAL  ENTITIES. 

(a)  In  General. — Chapter  136  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§  2283.  Space  surveillance  network 

"(a)  Satellite  Tracking  Services. — To  support  the  establishment  of  an  experi- 
mental pilot  program,  The  Secretary  of  Defense  is  authorized  to  establish  proce- 
dures under  which  non-United  States  Federal  governmental  entities,  including  but 
not  limited  to  U.S.  and  non-U.S.  commercial  entities,  state  and  local  government  en- 
tities and  foreign  governments,  may  purchase,  directly  or  through  a  contractor,  sat- 
ellite tracking  services  from  assets  owned  or  controlled  by  the  Department  of  De- 
fense. The  Secretary  may  include  in  such  transactions  the  provision  and  analysis 
of  satellite  data  if  he  determines  it  is  in  the  national  security  interests  of  the  United 
States.  Any  proposed  sale  to  a  foreign  government  or  foreign  commercial  entity  shall 
be  subject  to  the  concurrence  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  ensure  its  consistency  with 
United  States  foreign  policy  interests.  The  pilot  program  shall  be  conducted  during 
a  three-year  period  beginning  not  later  than  180  days  after  the  date  of  the  enact- 
ment of  this  Act. 

"(b)  Reimbursement  of  Costs. — In  the  case  of  any  purchase  made  by  a  non- 
United  States  Federal  governmental  entity  under  the  procedures  established  under 
subsection  (a),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may  require  the  non-United  States  Federal 
governmental  entity  to  reimburse  the  Department  of  Defense  for  the  costs  to  the  De- 
partment of  such  purchase. 

"(c)  Deposit  of  Funds  Received. — Funds  received  pursuant  to  the  sales  au- 
thorized in  subsection  (a)  shall  be  credited  to  accounts  of  the  Department  of  Defense 
that  are  current  when  the  proceeds  are  received  and  that  are  available  for  the  same 
purposes  as  the  accounts  originally  charged  to  perform  the  services.  Funds  so  cred- 
ited are  to  merge  with  and  become  available  for  obligation  for  the  same  period  as 
the  accounts  to  which  they  are  credited. 

"(d)  Non-Transferability  Agreement. — The  Department  will  require  all  non- 
United  States  Federal  governmental  entities  to  execute  a  binding  commitment  not 
to  transfer  any  data  or  technical  information,  including  the  analysis  of  the  tracking 
data,  to  any  other  entity  without  the  Department's  expressed  approval.  In  the  case 
of  foreign  governments  and  foreign,  commercial  entities,  the  Department's  approval 
will  be  subject  to  the  concurrence  of  the  Department  of  State. 

"(e)  Prohibition  Concerning  Intelligence  Assets  or  Data. — Nothing  in  this 
section  shall  be  deemed  to  authorize  the  provision  of  services  or  information  con- 
cerning, or  derived  from.  United  States  intelligence  assets  or  data.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"2283.  Space  surveillance  network". 

Subtitle  C — Reports 

SEC  921.  REPEAL  OF  VARIOUS  REPORTS  REQUIRED  OF  THE  DEPARTMENT  OFDEFENSE. 

(a)  Provisions  of  Title  10. — Title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  section  113 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (j); 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (m);  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsections  (k)  and  (1)  as  (j)  and  (k),  respectively; 

(2)  in  section  116 — 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  2;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chapter 
2  by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  116; 


XLIII 

(3)  in  section  117 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (e);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (f)  as  subsection  (e); 

(4)  in  section  127,  by  striking  subsection  (d); 

(5)  in  section  127a — 

(A)  by  striking  subparagraph  (a)(3); 

(B)  by  redesignating  subparagraph  (a)(4)  as  subparagraph  (a)(3); 

(C)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(D)  by  redesignating  subsections   (e)  through   (i)   as   subsections   (d) 
through  (h),  respectively; 

(6)  in  section  129,  by  striking  subsection  (f); 

(7)  in  section  153,  by  striking  subsection  (d); 

(8)  in  section  184^ 

(A)  by  amending  subsection  (a)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(a)  Authority  To  Establish  Regional  Center  for  Security  Studies.— The 
Secretary  of  Defense  may  establish  such  regional  centers  for  security  studies  as  he 
deems  necessary  and  appropriate."; 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsection  (c)  as  subsection  (b); 

(9)  for  section  228— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  9;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chapter 
by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  228; 

(10)  in  section  401 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (e)  as  subsection  (d); 

(11)  in  section  437— 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (b)  and  (c); 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (d)  as  subsection  (b); 

(12)  in  section  482— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  23;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  for  such  chapter  by  striking  the 
item  relating  to  section  482; 

(13)  in  section  483— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  23;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  for  such  chapter  by  striking  the 
item  relating  to  section  483; 

(14)  in  section  484 — 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  23;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  for  such  chapter  by  striking  the 
item  relating  to  section  484; 

(15)  in  section  487 — 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  23;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  for  such  chapter  by  striking  the 
item  relating  to  section  487; 

(16)  in  section  520c — 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (b)  and  (c);  and 

(B)  by  striking  the  designator  and  the  catch  line  in  the  preceding  mat- 
ter; 

(C)  by  amending  the  section  title  to  read:  "§  520c.  Provision  of  meals 
and  refreshments  for  recruiting  purposes";  and 

(D)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter  31 
by  replacing  the  item  relating  to  section  520c  vdth  the  following  new  item: 

"520c.  Provision  of  meals  and  refreshments  for  recruiting  purposes"; 

(17)  in  section  664(i),  (4)(F)(ii),  by  striking  "and  notifies  Congress  upon  each 
approval,  providing  the  criteria  that  led  to  that  approval"; 

(18)  in  section  983(e)(1),  by  striking  "and  to  Congress"; 

(19)  in  section  986,  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(20)  in  section  1060— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (e),  through  (g)  as  subsections  (d) 
through  (f)  respectively; 

(21)  in  section  1130— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (c)  and  (d)  as  subsections  (b)  and  (c), 
respectively; 

(22)  in  section  1557— 


XLIV 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (e);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (f)  as  subsection  (e); 
(23)  in  section  1563— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  80;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  for  such  chapter  by  striking  the 
item  relating  to  section  1563; 

(24)  in  section  1597,  by  striking  subsections  (c)  through  (e); 

(25)  in  section  2010— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (c)  and  (d)  as  subsections  (b)  and  (c), 
respectively; 

(26)  in  section  2011,  by  striking  subsection  (e). 

(27)  in  section  2166,  by  striking  subsection  (h); 

(28)  in  section  2208,  in  subsection  (j)(2),  by  striking  "and  notifies  Congress 
regarding  the  reasons  for  the  waiver"; 

(29)  in  section  2212— 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (d)  and  (e);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (f)  as  subsection  (d); 

(30)  in  section  2214— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (c);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (d)  as  subsection  (e); 

(31)  in  section  2216— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (i);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (j)  as  subsection  (i); 

(32)  in  section  2222— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  131;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  for  such  chapter  by  striking  the 
item  relating  to  section  2222; 

(33)  in  section  2255(b)— 

(A)  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(B)  by  striking  the  designator  "(1)"  after  the  catch  line; 

(34)  in  section  2281— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (e)  as  subsection  (d); 

(35)  in  section  2282— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  136;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  for  such  chapter  by  striking  the 
item  relating  to  section  2282; 

(36)  in  section  2306b— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (i); 

(B)  in  subsection  (1) — 

(i)  by  striking  paragraphs  (1)  and  (6); 

(ii)  by  redesignating  paragraphs  (2)  through  (10)  of  subsection  (1) 
as  paragraphs  (1)  through  (8),  respectively;  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsections  (j)  through  (1)  as  subsections  (i) 
through  (k),  respectively; 

(37)  in  section  2327(c)(1)— 

(A)  in  subparagraph  (A),  by  striking  "after  the  date  on  which  such  head 
of  an  agency  submits  to  Congress  a  report  on  the  contract"  and  inserting 
"if  in  the  best  interests  of  the  government"; 

(B)  by  striking  subparagraph  (B);  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subparagraph  (C)  as  subparagraph  (B); 

(38)  in  section  2350a— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (f);  and 

(B)  in  subsection  (g),  by  striking  paragraph  (3); 

(39)  in  section  2350b— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d); 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (e),  (f),  and  (g)  as  subsections  (d),  (e), 
and  (f),  respectively; 

(40)  in  section  2350j— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (e);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (f)  and  (g)  as  subsections  (e)  and  (f), 
respectively; 

(41)  in  section  2367,  by  striking  subsections  (c)  and  (d); 

(42)  in  section  2374a— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (e);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (0  as  subsection  (e); 

(43)  in  section  2401— 


XLV 

(A)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "only  as  provided  in  subsection  (b)" 
both  times  such  phrase  appears  in  the  subsection; 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsections  (c)  through  (f)  as  subsections  (b) 
through  (e),  respectively; 

(44)  in  section  24101,  in  subsection  (c),  by  striking  the  last  sentence; 

(45)  in  section  2410m,  by  striking  subsection  (c); 

(46)  in  section  2457— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (e)  and  (f)  as  subsections  (d)  and  (e), 
respectively; 

(47)  in  section  2461a — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (e)  as  subsection  (d); 

(48)  in  section  2464,  by  striking  paragraph  (3)  in  subsection  (b); 

(49)  in  section  2467,  by  striking  subsection  (c); 

(50)  in  section  2472,  by  striking  subsection  (b); 

(51)  in  section  2493,  by  striking  subsection  (g); 

(52)  for  section  2504— 

(A)  by  repealing  the  entire  section  in  chapter  148;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  section  of  tables  for  such  chapter  by  striking  all 
references  to  section  2504; 

(53)  in  section  2515,  by  striking  subsection  (d); 

(54)  in  section  2521,  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(55)  in  section  2536 — 

(A)  by  striking  paragraph  (2)  in  subsection  (b),  and  by  striking  designa- 
tor (1)  after  the  catch  line;  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subparagraphs  (A)  and  (B)  as  paragraphs  (1)  and 
(2),  respectively;  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subparagraphs  (i)  and  (ii)  as  subparagraphs  (A) 
and  (B),  respectively; 

(56)  in  section  2537— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (c)  as  subsection  (b); 

(57)  in  section  2541d— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by  striking  the  "(a)"  and  the  catch  line  in  the  remaining  matter; 

(58)  in  section  2561 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (c),  (d)  and  (f);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (e)  as  subsection  (c); 

(59)  in  section  2563,  by  striking  "and  notifies  Congress  regarding  the  rea-- 
sons  for  the  waiver"  in  subsection  (c)(2); 

(60)  in  section  2631,  by  striking  the  last  sentence  in  subsection  (b)(3); 

(61)  in  section  2645 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d); 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (g);  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsections  (e),  (f),  and  (h)  as  subsections  (d),  (e), 
and  (f),  respectively; 

(62)  in  section  2662— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (f)  and  (g)  as  subsections  (e)  and  (f), 
respectively;  and 

(C)  in  subsection  (f),  as  redesignated  by  subparagraph  (B),  by  striking 
",  and  the  reporting  requirement  set  forth  in  subsection  (e)  must  not  apply 
with  respect  to  a  real  property  transaction  otherwise  covered  by  that  sub- 
section,"; 

(63)  in  section  2667a  (c)— 

(A)  by  striking  paragraph  (2); 

(B)  by  striking  designator  (1)  after  the  catch  line; 

(64)  in  section  2676,  in  subsection  (d),  by  striking  all  after  "is  approved  by 
the  Secretary  concerned"  and  inserting  a  period; 

(65)  in  section  2680,  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(66)  in  section  2688— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (f)  through  (i)  as  subsections  (e) 
through  (h),  respectively;  and 

(C)  in  subsection  (f),  as  redesignated  by  subparagraph  (B),  by  striking 
the  last  sentence; 


XLVI 

(67)  in  section  2696— 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (c)  and  (d);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (e)  as  subsection  (c); 

(68)  in  section  2703(b)(2)— 

(A)  by  striking  subparagraph  (B); 

(B)  by  striking  the  designator  "(A)"  which  precedes  "determines  that 
permanent  relocation — "; 

(C)  by  striking  the  dash  that  follows  "such  paragraph  unless  the  Sec- 
retary" in  paragraph  (2); 

(D)  by  realigning  the  previously  designated  subparagraph  (A)  to  follow 
at  the  end  of  paragraph  (2);  and 

(E)  by  redesignating  clauses  (i)   through  (iii)  as   subparagraphs  (A) 
through  (C),  respectively; 

(69)  in  section  2805— 

(A)  in  subsection  (b),  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(B)  by  striking  the  designator  "(1)"  that  precedes  the  remaining  matter; 

(70)  in  section  2807— 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (b)  and  (c);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (d)  as  subsection  (b); 

(71)  in  section  2809,  by  striking  subsection  (f); 

(72)  in  section  2811— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (e)  as  subsection  (d); 

(73)  in  section  2812— 

(A)  in  subsection  (c),  by  striking  paragraph  (1); 

(B)  by  striking  the  designator  "(2)"  that  precedes  the  remaining  matter; 

(74)  in  section  2813,  by  striking  subsection  (c); 

(75)  in  section  2815— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  169;  and 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  section  at  the  beginning  of  such  chapter 
by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  2815; 

(76)  in  section  2825— 

(A)  in  subparagraph  (b)(1)(B) — 

(i)  by  striking  clause  (ii); 

(ii)  by  striking  ",  and"  at  the  end  of  clause  (i);  and 
(iii)  by  striking  the  designator  "(i)"  in  the  remaining  text  following 
"in  the  preceding  sentence  if; 

(B)  in  subsection  (c)(1) — 

(i)  by  striking  subparagraphs  (C)  and  (D); 
(ii)  by  inserting  "and"  at  the  end  of  subparagraph  (A);  and 
(iii)  by  striking  the  semicolon  at  the  end  of  subparagraph  (B)  and 
inserting  a  period; 

(77)  in  section  2826— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by   redesignating   subsections   (c)   through   (i)   as   subsections   (b) 
through  (h),  respectively; 

(78)  in  section  2827— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by  striking  "(a)  Subject  to  subsection  (b),  the  Secretary"  and  insert- 
ing "The  Secretary"; 

(79)  in  section  2828— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  if);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (g)  as  subsection  (f); 

(80)  in  section  2835— 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (b)  and  (g); 

CB)  by   redesignating   subsections   (c)  through  (h)   as   subsections  (b) 
through  (f),  respectively;  and 

(C)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "Subject  to  subsection  (b),  the  Sec- 
retary" and  inserting  "The  Secretary"; 

(81)  in  section  2836— 

(A)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "Subject  to  subsection  (b),  the  Sec- 
retary" and  inserting  "The  Secretary"; 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (b); 

(C)  by  striking  subsection  (f);  and 

(D)  by  redesignating  subsections   (c)  through  (g)   as   subsections   (b) 
through  (e),  respectively; 

(82)  in  section  2837— 

(A)  in  subsection  (c) — 


XLVII 

(i)  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(ii)  by  striking  the  designator  "(1)"  after  the  catch  line  and  preced- 
ing the  remaining  matter; 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (f);  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsections  (g)  and  (h)  as  subsections  (f)  and  (g), 
respectively; 

(83)  in  section  2853— 

(A)  in  subsection  (c),  by  striking  paragraphs  (2)  and  (3); 

(B)  in  the  remaining  matter,  by  striking  the  designator  "(1)"  and  the 
dash  and  realigning  the  paragraph  to  read  as  a  subsection;  and 

(C)  by  striking  the  semicolon  at  the  end  of  the  remaining  matter  and 
inserting  a  period; 

(84)  in  section  2854— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by  striking  "(a)  Subject  to  subsection  (b),  the"  in  the  preceding  mat- 
ter and  inserting  "The"; 

(85)  in  section  2854a — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (c);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (d)  through  (g)  as  subsections  (c) 
through  (f),  respectively; 

(86)  in  section  2865— 

(A)  in  subsection  (e),  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (f);  and 

(C)  by  striking  designator  (1)  after  the  catch  line; 

(87)  in  section  2866— 

(A)  in  subsection  (c),  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(B)  by  striking  designator  (1)  after  the  catch  line; 

(88)  in  section  2867,  by  striking  subsection  (c); 

(89)  in  section  2875,  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(90)  in  section  2884— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b); 

(B)  by  striking  the  designator  "(1)"  that  follows  the  catch  line  in  the 
remaining  matter; 

(C)  by  striking  the  designator  before  subparagraph  (2)  and  inserting 
"(b)  Content  of  Reports. — "  to  redesignate  that  subparagraph  as  a  sub- 
section; 

(D)  by  amending  the  section  title  to  read:  "§2884.  Project  reports";  and 

(E)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chapter 
169  by  replacing  the  item  relating  to  section  2884  with  the  following  new 
item: 

"2884.  Project  reports."; 

(91)  in  section  2902— 

(A)  in  subsection  (g),  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(B)  by  striking  designator  (1)  after  the  catch  line; 

(92)  in  section  5143,  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(93)  in  section  6954— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (f);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (g)  as  subsection  (f); 

(94)  in  section  7049— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (c);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (d)  through  (g)  as  subsections  (c) 
through  (f),  respectively; 

(95)  in  section  9356 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (c); 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsections  (d)  and  (e)  as  subsections  (c)  and  (d), 
respectively;  and 

(C)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "Subject  to  subsection  (c),  the  Sec- 
retary" and  inserting  "The  Secretary"; 

(96)  in  section  9514 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (c); 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (f);  and 

(C)  by  redesignating  subsection  (g)  as  subsection  (f); 

(97)  in  section  12302— 

(A)  in  subsection  (b),  by  striking  the  last  sentence;  and 

(B)  by  striking  subsection  (d);  and 

(98)  in  section  16137— 

(A)  by  repealing  this  entire  section  in  chapter  1606;  and 


XLVIII 

(B)  by  amending  the  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chapter 
by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  16137. 

(b)  Foreign  Assistance  Act  of  1961. — Section  656  of  the  Foreign  Assistance 
Act  of  1961  (Public  Law  87-195)  is  repealed. 

(c)  Defense  Acquisition  Improvement  Act  of  1986. — Section  908  of  the  De- 
fense Acquisition  Improvement  Act  of  1986  (as  contained  in  section  101(c)  of  Public 
Law  99-500  and  identically  enacted  in  section  101(c)  [title  X]  of  Public  Law  99-591 
and  title  IX  of  division  A  of  Pubhc  Law  99-661)  (10  U.S.C.  2326  note)  is  amended 
by  striking  subsection  (b). 

(d)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Years  1988  and 
1989. — Section  1121  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Years  1988 
and  1989  (Pubhc  Law  100-180;  101  Stat.  1147)  (10  U.S.C.  113  note)  is  amended— 

(1)  by  striking  subsection  (f);  and 

(2)  by  redesignating  subsections  (g)  and  (h)  as  subsections  (f)  and  (g),  re- 
spectively. 

(e)  Defense  Authorization  Amendments  and  Base  Closure  and  Realign- 
ment Act  of  1990. — Section  206  of  the  Defense  Authorization  Amendments  and 
Base  Closure  and  Realignment  Act  of  1990  (PubUc  Law  100-526;  102  Stat.  2631) 
(10  U.S.C.  2687)  is  repealed. 

(f)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1991. — The  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1991  (Public  Law  101-510;  104 
Stat.  1607,  1819,  and  1822,  respectively)  is  amended— 

(1)  in  section  831,  by  striking  subsection  (1); 

(2)  in  section  2921,  by  striking  subsections  (e),  (f),  (g)(1),  and  (g)(2);  and 

(3)  in  section  2926,  by  striking  subsection  (g). 

(g)  Defense  Economic  Adjustment,  Diversification,  Conversion,  and  Sta- 
bilization Act  of  1990. — Section  4004  of  the  Defense  Economic  Adjustment,  Diver- 
sification, Conversion,  and  Stabilization  Act  of  1990  (Public  Law  101-510;  104  Stat. 
1849)  is  amended  by  striking  paragraph  (c)(3). 

(h)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Years  1992  and 
1993.— The  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Years  1992  and  1993 
(PubUc  Law  102-190;  105  Stat.  1411  and  1562,  respectively)  is  amended— 

(1)  in  section  734 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (c);  and 

(B)  by   redesignating   subsections   (d)   through   (f)   as   subsections   (c) 
through  (e),  respectively;  and 

(2)  by  repealing  section  2868. 

(i)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1993. — The  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1993  (Pubhc  Law  102-484;  106 
Stat.  2367,  2439,  2516,  and  2609  respectively)  is  amended— 

(1)  in  section  324,  by  striking  subsection  (b),  and  by  striking  the  designator 
"(a)"  prior  to  "Sense  of  Congress"  in  the  remaining  matter; 

(2)  in  section  722,  by  striking  subsection  (d); 

(3)  in  section  1082(b)— 

(A)  by  striking  subparagraph  (1)(B); 

(B)  by  striking  the  dash  in  subsection  (b)  of  section  1082;  and 

(C)  by  striking  the  designator  "(A)"  preceding  the  remaining  matter, 
and  realigning  it  to  read  as  a  paragraph;  and 

(4)  in  section  2827— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (b);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (c)  as  subsection  (b). 

(j)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1994. — The  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1994  (Public  Law  103-160;  107 
Stat.  1659  and  1931  respectively)  is  amended — 

(1)  by  repealing  section  542;  and 

(2)  in  section  2924,  by  striking  subsection  (b). 

(k)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1995. — The  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1995  (Public  Law  103-337;  108 
Stat.  2804  and  2890,  respectively)  is  amended — 

(1)  in  section  721— 

(A)  by  striking  subsection  (h);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (i)  as  subsection  (h);  and 

(2)  in  section  1305,  by  striking  subsection  (h). 

(1)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1996. — Section 
2840  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1996  (Public  Law 
104-106;  110  Stat.  564)  is  amended— 
(1)  in  subsection  (a) — 

(A)  by  striking  paragraph  (4);  and 


XLIX 

(B)  by  redesignating  paragraph  (5)  as  paragraph  (4);  and 
(2)  in  subsection  (b) — 

(A)  by  striking  paragraph  (4);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  paragraph  (5)  as  paragraph  (4). 

(m)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1997.— The  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1997  (Pubhc  Law  104-201;  110 
Stat.  2480  and  2653,  respectively)  is  amended — 

(1)  in  section  324,  by  striking  subsection  (c);  and 

(2)  in  section  1065,  by  striking  subsection  (b). 

(n)  Omnibus  Consolidated  Appropriations  Act,  1997. — Section  8009  of  the 
Omnibus  Consolidated  Appropriations  Act,  1997  (Public  Law  104-208;  110  Stat. 
3009-89)  is  amended— 

( 1 )  by  striking  "unless  the  congressional  defense  committees  have  been  noti- 
fied at  least  thirty  days  in  advance  of  the  proposed  contract  award"; 

(2)  by  striking  the  comma  after  "year";  and 

(3)  by  striking  the  colon  before  ''Provided" . 

(o)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1998. — Section 
349  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1998  (Public  Law 
105-85;  111  Stat.  1690)  is  amended  by  striking  subsection  (e). 

(p)  Strom  Thurmond  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal 
Year  1999. — The  Strom  Thurmond  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal 
Year  1999  (PubUc  Law  105-261;  112  Stat.  2075  and  2155,  respectively)  is 
amended — 

(1)  in  section  745(e) — 

(A)  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(B)  by  striking  the  designator  "(1)"  following  the  catch  line  in  the  pre- 
ceding matter;  and 

(2)  by  repealing  section  1223. 

(q)  Department  of  Defense  Appropriations  Act,  1999. — Section  8005  of  the 
Department  of  Defense  Appropriations  Act,  1999  (Pubhc  Law  105-262;  112  Stat. 
2297)  is  amended  by  striking  "Provided  further.  That  the  Secretary  of  Defense  shall 
notify  the  Congress  promptly  of  all  transfers  made  pursuant  to  this  authority  or  any 
other  authority  in  this  Act:". 

(r)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2000.— The  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2000  (Public  Law  106-65;  113  Stat. 
542,  697,  706,  748,  756,  779,  and  798,  respectively)  is  amended— 

(1)  in  section  212,  by  striking  subsection  (c); 

(2)  in  section  724,  by  striking  subsection  (e); 

(3)  by  repealing  section  811; 

(4)  by  repealing  section  1025; 

(5)  in  section  1039,  by  striking  subsection  (b); 

(6)  in  section  1201 — 

(A)  by  striking  subsections  (d)  and  (e);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  subsection  (f)  as  subsection  (d);  and 

(7)  in  section  1402,  by  striking  subsection  (b)(2). 

(s)  Military  Construction  Appropriations  Act,  2001. — The  Military  Con- 
struction Appropriations  Act,  2001  (Public  Law  106-246;  114  Stat.  517  and  518,  re- 
spectively) is  amended — 

(1)  by  repealing  section  125;  and 

(2)  in  section  127,  by  striking  all  that  follows  after  "including  flag  and  gen- 
eral officer  quarters"  and  inserting  a  period. 

(t)  Department  of  Defense  Appropriations  Act,  2001. — Section  8019  of  the 
Department  of  Defense  Appropriations  Act,  2001  (Pubhc  Law  106-259;  114  Stat. 
678;)  is  amended  by  striking  the  last  sentence. 

(u)  Floyd  D.  Spence  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year 
2001.— The  Floyd  D.  Spence  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year 
2001  (Public  Law  106-398  Appendix;  114  Stat.  1654A-28  and  1654A-247,  respec- 
tively) is  amended — 

(1)  by  repealing  section  131; 

(2)  in  section  1006,  by  striking  subsection  (c);  and 

(3)  by  repealing  section  1233. 

(v)  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2002.— The  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2002  (PubUc  Law  107-107;  115 
Stat.  1180  and  1204,  respectively)  is  amended  in  section  804(a),  by  striking  "of  each 
of  years  2003  through  2006"  and  inserting  "2003,". 

(w)  Department  of  Defense  and  Emergency  Supplemental  Appropriations 
for  Recovery  From  and  Response  To  Terrorist  Attacks  on  the  United  States 
Act,  2002. — Section  8009  of  the  Department  of  Defense  and  Emergency  Supple- 


mental  Appropriations  for  Recovery  From  and  Response  To  Terrorist  Attacks  on  the 
United  States  Act,  2002  (Public  Law  107-117;  115  Stat.  2249;  10  U.S.C.  401  note) 
is  amended  by  striking  ",  and  these  obligations  shall  be  reported  to  the  Congress 
as  of  September  30  of  each  year". 

(x)  Senate  Executive  Resolution  75  (105th  Congress,  1st  Session,  Agreed 
TO  BY  THE  Senate  on  April  24,  1997). — Section  2,  Condition  11,  paragraph  (F),  of 
Senate  Executive  Resolution  75,  a  provision  of  the  Senate's  advice  and  consent  to 
the  ratification  of  the  Chemical  Weapons  Convention  (Treaty  Doc.  103-21),  is  re- 
pealed. 

Subtitle  D— Other  Matters 

SEC.  931.  COMBATANT  COMMANDS  INITIATIVES  FUNB. 

(a)  Substitution  of  the  Term  "CINC". — Section  166a  of  title  10,  United  States 
Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "CINC"  wherever  it  appears  and  inserting  "Combatant 
Commander". 

(b)  Funds  Authorized. — Subsection  (e)(1)  of  such  title  is  amended— 

(1)  in  subparagraph  (A),  by  striking  "$7,000,000"  and  inserting 
"$15,000,000"; 

(2)  in  subparagraph  (B),  by  striking  "$1,000,000"  and  inserting 
"$10,000,000";  and 

(3)  in  subparagraph  (C),  by  striking  "$2,000,000"  and  inserting 
"$10,000,000". 

SEC.  932.  CONSOLEDATING  THE  FINANCIAL  MANAGEMENT  OF  FACILITIES  IN  THE  NATIONAL 
CAPITAL  REGION  AND  DESIGNATED  ALTERNATE  SITES. 

Section  2674  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (b)(1),  by  striking  "of  the  Department  of  Defense,  and  lo- 
cated" and  inserting  "of  the  Department  of  Defense  that  is  either  on  the  Penta- 
gon Reservation  or"; 

(2)  in  subsection  (d),  by  inserting  before  the  period  at  the  end  the  following: 
"or  at  facilities  occupied  by  the  Department  of  Defense  in  the  National  Capital 
Region"; 

(3)  in  subsection  (e) — 

(A)  in  paragraph  (1),  by  striking  "pursuant  to  subsection  (d)"  and  in- 
serting "or  at  facilities  occupied  by  the  Department  of  Defense  in  the  Na- 
tional Capital  Region  pursuant  to  subsection  (d).  Any  residual  balance  in 
the  Buildings  Maintenance  Fund  shall  be  transferred  to  the  Pentagon  Res- 
ervation Maintenance  Revolving  Fund";  and 

(B)  in  paragraph  (2),  by  inserting  before  the  period  at  the  end  the  fol- 
lowing: "and  at  facilities  occupied  by  the  Department  of  Defense  in  the  Na- 
tional Capital  Region."; 

(4)  in  subsection  (f)(1)— 

(A)  by  inserting  " — (A)"  after  the  "The  Pentagon  Reservation  means"; 

(B)  by  striking  the  period  at  the  end  and  inserting  ";  and";  and 

(C)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  subparagraph: 

"(B)  notwithstanding  section  2682  of  this  title,  such  other  areas  of  land, 
locations,  or  physical  facilities  of  the  Department  of  Defense  as  the  Sec- 
retary of  Defense  may  determine  are  necessary  to  designate  as  part  of  the 
Pentagon  Reservation  in  order  to  meet  continuity  of  operations  or  other  re- 
lated national  security  needs  of  the  Department.". 

TITLE  X— GENERAL  PROVISIONS 
Subtitle  A — Financial  Matters 

SEC.  1001.  PAYMENT  OF  FULL  REPLACEMENT  VALUE  FOR  PERSONAL  PROPERTY  CLAIMS. 

Section  2636  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end 
the  following  new  subsection: 

"(c)  The  Secretary  of  Defense  or  the  Secretary  of  a  military  department  may 
procure  from  commercial  transportation  service  providers  full  replacement  value 
coverage  for  household  goods  shipments  provided  at  government  expense  without  re- 
gard to  the  dollar  limitations  contained  in  title  37,  United  States  Code,  Section 
3721,  relative  to  claims  for  loss  or  damages.  Under  such  contracts,  servicemembers 
will  be  reimbursed  full  replacement  value,  if  warranted,  and  such  amounts  may  be 


LI 

deducted  from  the  amounts  due  the  carriers  if  settlement  is  not  reached  between 
the  servicemember  and  the  carrier.". 

SEC.  1002.  RESTORATION  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  ENTER  INTO  12-MONTH  LEASES  AT  ANY  TIME 
DURING  THE  FISCAL  YEAR. 

Section  2410a(a)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  inserting  after 
"severable  services"  the  following:  "and  the  lease  of  real  or  personal  property,  in- 
cluding the  maintenance  of  such  property  when  contracted  for  as  part  of  the  lease 
agreement,". 

SEC.  1003.  AUTHORITY  TO  PROVIDE  REEVtBURSEMENT  FOR  CELLULAR  TELEPHONE  USE. 

(a)  General  Authority. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  is  authorized  to  reimburse 
employees  on  a  flat-rate  basis  for  cellular  telephone  used  on  privately-owned  cellular 
phones  when  on  official  government  business. 

(b)  Reimbursement  Rate. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  prescribe  the  cellular 
phone  flat  reimbursement  rate.  This  reimbursement  rate  shall  not  exceed  the  equiv- 
alent Government  costs  of  providing  a  cellular  telephone  to  employees  on  official 
Government  business. 

SEC.  1004.  REIMBURSEMENT  FOR  RESERVE  INTELLIGENCE  SUPPORT. 

(a)  In  General.— Chapter  1003  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§10115.  Reimbursement  for  reserve  intelligence  support 

"The  Secretary  of  Defense  or  the  Secretary  concerned  shall  reimburse  a  Reserve 
or  National  Guard  unit  or  organization  for  the  pay,  allowances,  or  other  expenses 
incurred  by  the  Reserve  or  National  Guard  unit  or  organization  when  a  member  of 
the  Reserve  or  National  Guard  unit  or  organization  provides  intelligence  support, 
counterintelligence  support,  or  intelligence  and  counterintelligence  support  to  Com- 
batant Commands,  Defense  Agencies,  and  Joint  Intelligence  Activities,  including  but 
not  limited  to  the  activities  and  programs  within  the  National  Foreign  Intelligence 
Program,  the  Joint  Military  Intelligence  Program,  and  the  Tactical  Intelligence  and 
Related  Activities.  Reimbursement  shall  be  paid  out  of  funds  available  for  oper- 
ations and  maintenance  of  the  military  departments,  combatant  commands,  or  De- 
fense Agencies.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"10115.  Reimbursement  for  reserve  intelligence  support.". 

SEC.  1005.  INCREASED  USE  OF  ENERGY  COST  SAVINGS. 

Section  2865(b)(1)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "Two- 
thirds  of  the  portion  of  the  funds  appropriated  to  Department  of  Defense  for  a  fiscal 
year  that  is"  and  inserting  "Funds  appropriated  to  the  Department  of  Defense  for 
a  fiscal  year  that  are". 

SEC.  1006.  ALLOW  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  TO  CAPTURE  ALL  EXPIRED  FUNDS  FROM 
THE  MILITARY  PERSONNEL  AND  OPERATION  AND  MAINTENANCE  APPROPRIA- 
TIONS ACCOUNTS  FOR  USE  IN  THE  FOREIGN  CURRENCY  FLUCTUATIONS  AC- 
COUNT. 

Section  2779  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (a)(2),  by  striking  "second  fiscal  year"  and  inserting  "fifth 
fiscal  year";  and 

(2)  in  subsection  (d)(2),  by  striking  "second  fiscal  year"  and  inserting  "fifth 
fiscal  year". 

SEC.  1007.  FUNDING  FOR  SPECIAL  OPERATIONS  RESERVE  COMPONENT  PERSONNEL  EN- 
GAGED IN  ACTIVITIES  RELATING  TO  CLEARANCE  OF  LANDMINES. 

Funds  authorized  in  this  Act  for  the  Overseas  Humanitarian,  Disaster  and  Civic 
Aid  programs  of  the  Department  of  Defense  shall  be  available,  in  a  total  amount 
not  to  exceed  $5,000,000  in  any  fiscal  year,  for  reimbursement  of  pay  and  allow- 
ances of  Special  Operations  Reserve  Component  personnel  performing  duty  in  con- 
nection vidth  training  and  activities  related  to  the  clearing  of  landmines  for  humani- 
tarian purposes. 


LII 
Subtitle  B — Naval  Vessels  and  Shipyards 

SEC.  1011.  REIMBURSEMENT  TO  THE  NAVY  FOR  ASSISTANCE  PROVIDED  EN  SUPPORT  OF  CER- 
TAIN SHIP  AND  SHIPBOARD  EQUIPMENT  TRANSFERS. 

(a)  In  General. — Chapter  633  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§  7316.  Reimbursement  for  assistance  provided  in  support  of  certain  ship 
and  shipboard  equipment  transfers 

"(a)  Authority  To  Perform  Work. — The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may  provide 
assistance  in  support  of  any  ship  or  shipboard  equipment  transfer  under  sections 
2572,  7306,  7307,  and  7545  of  this  title,  or  under  any  other  authority,  in  connection 
with  inactive  decommissioned  Navy-owned  vessels  maintained  and  located  at  Navy 
facilities. 

"(b)  Reimbursement. — The  Secretary  may  require  the  entities  receiving  assist- 
ance under  subsection  (a)  to  reimburse  the  Navy  for  amounts  expended  in  providing 
such  assistance. 

"(c)  Deposit  of  Funds  Received. — Funds  received  under  subsection  (b)  shall  be 
credited  to  the  appropriations  supporting  the  maintenance  and  operation  of  the 
Navy  Inactive  Ships  Management  Office  for  the  fiscal  year  in  which  the  funds  are 
received,  to  merge  with  and  become  available  for  the  same  purposes  and  period  as 
the  accounts  to  which  they  are  credited.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"7316.  Reimbursement  for  assistance  provided  in  support  of  certain  ship  and  shipboard  equipment  transfers.". 

SEC.   1012.  VESSELS  STRICKEN  FROM  NAVAL  VESSEL  REGISTER:  USE  FOR  EXPERIMENTAL 
PURPOSES. 

Section  7306a  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (b)— 

(A)  in  paragraph  (1),  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sentence: 
"Material  and  equipment  stripped  from  the  vessel  may  be  sold  by  a  contrac- 
tor or  a  designated  sales  agent  on  behalf  of  the  Navy.";  and 

(B)  in  paragraph  (2),  by  striking  "scrapping  services"  and  all  that  fol- 
lows through  the  end  of  the  paragraph  and  inserting  "services  needed  for 
such  stripping  and  for  environmental  remediation  required  for  the  use  of 
a  vessel  for  experimental  purposes.  Amounts  received  which  are  in  excess 
of  amounts  needed  for  reimbursement  of  those  costs  shall  be  deposited  into 
the  account  from  which  the  stripping  and  environmental  remediation  ex- 
penses were  incurred  and  shall  be  available  for  stripping  and  environ- 
mental remediation  of  other  vessels  used  for  experimental  purposes.";  and 

(2)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  subsection: 

"(c)  Experimental  Purposes  Defined. — For  purposes  of  this  section,  the  term 
'experimental  purposes'  includes  vessels  used  in  Navy  sink  exercises  and  for  target 
use.". 

SEC.  1013.  AUTHORIZE  TRANSFER  OF  VESSELS  STRICKEN  FROM  THE  NAVAL  VESSEL  REG- 
ISTER FOR  USE  AS  ARTIFICIAL  REEFS. 

Chapter  633  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  inserting  after  sec- 
tion 7306a  the  following  new  section: 

"§  7306b.  Vessels  stricken  from  Naval  Vessel  Register;  transfer  by  gift  or 
otherwise  for  use  as  artificial  reefs 

"(a)  AUTHORITY  To  Make  Transfer. — Subject  to  subsections  (c)  and  (d)  of  sec- 
tion 602  of  the  Federal  Property  and  Administrative  Services  Act  of  1949  (40  U.S.C. 
474),  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may  transfer,  by  gift  or  otherwise,  any  vessel  strick- 
en from  the  Naval  Vessel  Register  to  any  State,  Commonwealth,  or  possession  of 
the  United  States  or  any  municipal  corporation  or  political  subdivision  thereof. 

"(b)  Vessel  To  Be  Used  as  Artificial  Reef. — An  agreement  for  the  transfer 
of  a  vessel  under  subsection  (a)  shall  require  that — 

"(1)  the  transferee  use,  site,  construct,  monitor  and  manage  the  vessel  only 
as  an  artificial  reef  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  chapter  35  of  title 
33,  except  that  the  transferee  also  may  use  the  artificial  reef  to  enhance  diving 
opportunities  if  that  use  does  not  have  an  adverse  effect  on  fishery  resources, 
as  defined  in  section  1802(14)  of  the  Magnuson-Stevens  Fishery  Conservation 
and  Management  Act  of  1976,  as  amended  (Public  Law  100-627;  16  U.S.C. 
1802);  and 


LIII 

"(2)  the  transferee  shall  obtain  and  bear  all  of  the  responsibility  for  comply- 
ing with  all  of  the  applicable  federal,  state,  interstate,  and  local  permits  for 
siting,  constructing,  monitoring  and  managing  a  vessel  as  an  artificial  reef 
"(c)  Additional  Terms. — The  Secretary  may  require  such  additional  terms  in 
connection  with  the  conveyance  authorized  by  this  section  as  the  Secretary  considers 
appropriate. 

"(d)  Cost  Sharing  on  Transfers. — The  Department  of  the  Navy  may  share 
with  the  recipient  any  of  the  costs  associated  with  transferring  the  vessel  under  this 
section. 

"(e)  Application  for  More  Than  One  Vessel. — A  State,  Commonwealth,  or 
possession  of  the  United  States,  or  any  municipal  corporation  or  political  subdivision 
thereof,  may  apply  for  more  than  one  vessel  under  this  section.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  inserting  after  the  item  relating  to  section  7306a  the  following 
new  item: 

"7306b.  Vessels  stricken  from  Naval  Vessel  Register;  transfer  by  gift  or  otherwise  for  use  as  artificial  reefs.". 
SEC.  1014.  REPEAL  OF  THE  SHIPBUILDING  CAPABILITY  PRESERVATION  AGREEMENT. 

(a)  In  General. — Section  7315  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  repealed. 

(b)  Savings  Provision. — Agreements  entered  into  under  the  authority  of  sec- 
tion 7315  prior  to  the  date  of  enactment  of  this  Act  shall  continue  to  remain  in  full 
force  and  effect. 

(c)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter 
633  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  7315. 

Subtitle  C — Counter-Drug  Activities 

SEC.  1021.  extend  authority  FOR  USE  OF  COUNTER-DRUG  ACTIVITIES. 

(a)(1)  Authority. — In  fiscal  years  2004  and  2005,  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may 
use  funds  available  for  drug  interdiction  and  counter-drug  activities  to  provide  as- 
sistance to  the  Government  of  Colombia  to  support  a  unified  campaign  against  nar- 
cotics trafficking,  to  support  a  unified  campaign  against  activities  by  organizations 
designated  as  terrorist  organizations  such  as  the  Revolutionary  Armed  Forces  of  Co- 
lombia, the  National  Liberation  Army,  and  the  United  Self-Defense  Forces  of  Colom- 
bia, and  to  take  actions  to  protect  human  health  and  welfare  in  emergency  cir- 
cumstances, including  undertaking  rescue  operations. 

(2)  The  authority  in  this  section  is  in  addition  to  authorities  currently  available 
to  provide  assistance  to  Colombia. 

(b)  Application  to  Funds. — Sections  556,  567,  and  568  of  the  Foreign  Oper- 
ations, Export  Financing,  and  Related  Programs  Appropriations  Act,  2002  (Public 
Law  107-115;  115  Stat.  2160,  2165  and  2166,  respectively),  section  8093  of  the  De- 
partment of  Defense  Appropriations  Act,  2002  (Public  Law  107-248;  116  Stat.  1558), 
and  the  numerical  limitations  on  the  number  of  United  States  military  personnel 
and  United  States  individual  civilian  contractors  in  section  3204(b)(1)  of  the  Mili- 
tary Construction  Appropriations  Act,  2001  (Pubhc  Law  106-246;  114  Stat.  575),  as 
amended,  shall  be  applicable  to  funds  made  available  pursuant  to  the  authority  con- 
tained in  subsection  (a). 

(c)  Prohibition. — No  United  States  Armed  Forces  personnel  or  United  States 
civilian  contractor  employed  by  the  United  States  will  participate  in  any  combat  op- 
eration in  connection  with  assistance  made  available  under  this  chapter,  except  for 
the  purpose  of  acting  in  self-defense  or  rescuing  any  United  States  citizen  to  include 
United  States  Armed  Forces  personnel,  United  States  civilian  employees,  and  civil- 
ian contractors  employed  by  the  United  States. 

sec.  1022.  DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  SUPPORT  FOR  COUNTER-TERRORISM  ACTIVITIES  IN 
THE  AMERICAS. 

In  fiscal  year  2004,  funds  made  available  to  the  Department  of  Defense  to  sup- 
port counter-drug  activities  are  hereby  authorized  to  support  a  unified  campaign 
against  illicit  narcotics-trafficking  and  related  activities  by  identified  organizations 
engaged  in  such  narcotics-trafficking,  to  support  a  unified  campaign  against  activi- 
ties by  organizations  in  the  Americas  hemisphere  actively  engaged  in,  or  designated 
as,  terrorist  organizations,  and  to  take  sufficient  action  to  protect  human  health  and 
welfare  in  exigent  circumstances,  including  the  undertaking  of  rescue  operations 
throughout  Central  and  South  America  and  the  waters  south  of  the  Continental 
United  States,  such  as  the  Pacific  Ocean  east  of  120  degrees  West,  the  Gulf  of  Mex- 
ico, and  the  Caribbean  Sea.  The  exercise  of  this  authority  by  the  Secretary  of  De- 
fense is  subject  to  the  concurrence  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 


LIV 

SEC.  1023.  EXPANSION  AND  EXTENSION  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  PROVIDE  ADDITIONAL  SUPPORT 
FOR  COUNTER-DRUG  ACTIVITIES. 

Section  1033  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1998 
(Public  Law  105-85;  111  Stat.  1881),  as  amended  by  the  National  Defense  Author- 
ization Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2001  (Public  Law  106-398;  114  Stat.  1654A-255),  is 
amended — 

(1)  in  the  section  title  by  striking  "Peru  and  Colombia"  and  inserting  "other 
countries"; 

(2)  in  subsection  (a) — 

(A)  by  striking  "2002"  and  inserting  "2006";  and 

(B)  by  striking  "either  or  both"  and  inserting  "any"; 

(3)  by  amending  subsection  (b)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(b)  Governments  Eligible  To  Receive  Support. — The  foreign  governments 
eligible  to  receive  counter-drug  support  under  this  section  are  as  follows: 
"(1)  Afghanistan. 
"(2)  Ecuador. 
"(3)  Pakistan. 
"(4)  Tajikistan. 
"(5)  Turkmenistan. 
"(6)  Uzbekistan 
"(7)  Peru;  and 
"(8)  Colombia."; 

(4)  in  subsection  (c) — 

(A)  in  paragraph  (2)  by  striking  "riverine"; 

(B)  by  amending  paragraph  (3)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(3)  The  maintenance,  repair,  or  upgrade  of  equipment  of  the  government 
that  is  used  for  counter-drug  activities.";  and 

(C)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph  (4): 

"(4)  The  sustainment,  including  ammunition,  of  counter-drug  security 
forces."; 

(5)  in  subsection  (e)(2) — 

(A)  by  striking  "$20,000,000"  and  inserting  "$40,000,000";  and 

(B)  by  striking  "1999"  and  inserting  "2004";  and 

(6)  in  subsection  (h) — 

(A)  by  amending  subsection  (h)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(h)  Counter-Drug  Plan. — The  Secretary  of  Defense,  in  consultation  with  the 
Secretary  of  State,  shall  prepare  for  fiscal  year  2004  (and  revise  as  necessary  for 
subsequent  fiscal  years)  a  counter-drug  plan  involving  the  governments  named  in 
subsection  (b)  to  which  support  will  be  provided  under  this  section:"; 

(B)  in  paragraph  (2),  by  striking  "riverine"; 

(C)  in  paragraph  (7),  by  striking  "riverine"; 

(D)  in  paragraph  (8),  by  striking  "riverine";  and 

(E)  by  amending  paragraph  (9)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(9)  A  detailed  discussion  of  how  the  counter-drug  program  supports  the  na- 
tional drug  control  strategy  and  the  national  security  cooperation  goals  of  the 
United  States.". 

Subtitle  D — Other  Department  of  Defense  Provisions 

SEC.  1031.  PROVISION  OF  LIVING  QUARTERS  FOR  CERTAIN  STUDENTS. 

Section  2195  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end 
the  following  new  subsection: 

"(d)  Notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  section  5911(c),  title  5,  United  States 
Code,  the  Director  of  the  National  Security  Agency  may  provide  living  quarters 
without  charge,  or  at  rates  or  charges  fixed  by  regulation,  to  a  student  in  the  Stu- 
dent Educational  Employment  Program  or  similar  program,  as  prescribed  by  the  Of- 
fice of  Personnel  Management,  while  the  student  is  employed  at  the  Agency's  lab- 
oratory.". 

SEC.  1032.  REPEAL  OF  REQUIRED  GRADE  FOR  DEFENSE  ATTACHE  IN  FRANCE. 

(a)  In  General. — Section  714  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  repealed. 

(b)  Conforming  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter 
41  of  that  title  is  amended  by  striking  the  item  relating  to  section  714. 

SEC.  1033.  NATIONAL  GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE  AGENCY. 

(a)  Definition  of  Geospatial  Intelligence. — Section  467  of  title  10,  United 
States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 


LV 

"(5)  The  term  'geospatial  intelligence'  means  the  exploitation  and  analysis 
of  imagery  and  geospatial  information  to  describe,  assess,  and  visually  depict 
physical  features  and  geographically  referenced  activities  on  the  Earth.  This 
term  consists  of  imagery,  imagery  intelligence,  and  geospatial  information.". 

(b)  Missions. — Section  442(a)  of  such  title  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 
"(a)  National  Security  Missions.— 

(1)  The  National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency  shall,  in  support  of  the  na- 
tional security  objectives  of  the  United  States,  provide  geospatial  intelligence 
consisting  of  the  following: 
"(A)  Imagery. 
"(B)  Imagery  intelligence. 
"(C)  Geospatial  information. 
"(2)  Geospatial  intelligence  provided  in  carrying  out  paragraph  (1)  shall  be 
timely,  relevant,  and  accurate.". 

(c)  National  Security  Act  Change. — Section  110  of  the  National  Security  Act 
of  1947  (50  U.S.C.  404(e))  is  amended  by  striking  "imagery"  and  inserting 
"geospatial  intelligence". 

(d)  Technical  Changes  to  Title  10.— 

(1)  The  title  of  chapter  22  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "National 
Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National  Geospatial-Intelligence 
Agency". 

(2)  Paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  section  441  of  such  title  are  amended  by  strik- 
ing "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(3)  Section  442  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and 
Mapping  Agency"  wherever  it  appears  and  inserting  "National  Geospatial-Intel- 
ligence Agency". 

(4)  Paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  section  443  of  such  title  are  amended  by  strik- 
ing "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(5)  Paragraphs  (a),  (b),  (c),  and  (e)  of  section  444  of  such  title  are  amended 
by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(6)  Section  451  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and 
Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(7)  Paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  section  452  of  such  title  are  amended  by  strik- 
ing "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(8)  Paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  section  453  of  such  title  are  amended — 

(A)  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting 
"National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency";  and 

(B)  by  striking  "NIMA"  and  inserting  "NGA". 

(9)  Section  454  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and 
Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(10)  Paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  section  455  of  such  title  are  amended  by 
striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(11)  Paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  section  456  of  such  title  are  amended  by 
striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(12)  Paragraph  (b)  of  section  457  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "Na- 
tional Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National  Geospatial-Intel- 
ligence Agency". 

(13)  Paragraphs  (a),  (b),  (c),  and  (d)  of  section  461  of  such  title  are  amended 
by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(14)  Section  1614  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "National  Imagery 
and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(e)  Technical  Changes  to  the  National  Security  Act  of  1947. — 

(1)  Section  3  of  the  National  Security  Act  of  1947  (50  U.S.C.  401a)  is 
amended  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting 
"National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(2)  Paragraphs  (b)  and  (d)  of  section  105  of  such  Act  (50  U.S.C.  403-5)  are 
amended  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting 
"National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(3)  Paragraph  (b)  of  section  105A  of  such  Act  (50  U.S.C.  403-5a)  is  amended 
by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 


LVT 

(4)  Section  105C  of  such  Act  (50  U.S.C.  403-5c)  is  amended— 

(A)  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  wherever  it 
appears  and  inserting  "National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency";  and 

(B)  and  by  striking  "NIMA"  wherever  it  appears  and  inserting  "NGA". 

(5)  Paragraph  (a)  of  section  106  of  such  Act  (50  U.S.C.  403-6)  is  amended 
by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting  "National 
Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(6)  Paragraphs  (a),  (b),  and  (c)  of  section  110  of  such  Act  (50  U.S.C.  404e) 
are  amended  by  striking  "National  Imagery  and  Mapping  Agency"  and  inserting 
"National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency". 

(f)  Seal. — Section  425  (a)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding 
at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(5)  The  words  'National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency',  the  initials  'NGA,' 
or  the  seal  of  the  National  Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency.". 

Subtitle  E— Other  Matters 

SEC.  1041.  UPDATING  DEFINITIONS  IN  TITLE  10,  UIinTED  STATES  CODE. 

(a)  General  Definitions. — Subsection  (a)  of  section  101  of  title  10,  United 
States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraphs: 

"(16)  The  term  'appropriate  committees  of  Congress'  means  the  Committee 
on  Armed  Services  and  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  of  the  Senate  and  the 
Committee  on  Armed  Services  and  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  and,  with  respect  to  any  project  to  be  carried  out  by, 
or  for  the  use  of,  an  intelligence  component  of  the  Department  of  Defense,  the 
Permanent  Select  Committee  on  Intelligence  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
£md  the  Select  Committee  on  Intelligence  of  the  Senate. 
"(17)  The  term  'base  closure  law'  means — 
"(A)  section  2687  of  this  title; 

"(B)  title  II  of  the  Defense  Authorization  Amendments  and  Base  Clo- 
sure and  Realignment  Act  of  1988  (Public  Law  100-526;  10  U.S.C.  2687 
note); 

"(C)  the  Defense  Base  Closure  and  Realignment  Act  of  1990  (part  A  of 
title  XXIX  of  Pubhc  Law  101-510;  10  U.S.C.  2687  note);  and 

"(D)  any  other  similar  authority  for  the  closure  or  realignment  of  mili- 
tary installations  that  is  enacted  after  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  the  Bob 
Stump  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2003. 
"(18)  The  term  'Indian  tribe'  has  the  meaning  given  such  term  in  section 
102(2)  of  the  FederaUy  Recognized  Indian  Tribe  List  Act  of  1994  (25  U.S.C. 
479a(2)).". 

(b)  Facilities  Definitions. — Section  101  is  further  amended — 

(1)  by  redesignating  subsections  (e)  and  (f)  as  subsections  (f)  and  (g),  respec- 
tively; and 

(2)  by  inserting  after  subsection  (d)  the  following  new  subsection  (e): 

"(e)  Facilities  and  Operations. — Unless  the  context  indicates  otherwise,  the 
following  definitions  relating  to  facilities  and  operations  apply  to  this  title: 
"(1)  The  term 'military  munitions' — 

"(A)  means  all  ammunition  products  and  components  produced  for  or 
used  by  the  armed  forces  for  national  defense  and  security,  including  am- 
munition products  or  components  under  the  control  of  the  Department  of 
Defense,  the  Coast  Guard,  the  Department  of  Energy,  and  the  National 
Guard.  The  term  includes  confined  gaseous,  liquid,  and  solid  propellants, 
explosives,  pyrotechnics,  chemical  and  riot  control  agents,  smokes,  incendi- 
aries, bulk  explosives  and  chemical  warfare  agents,  chemical  munitions, 
rockets,  guided  and  ballistic  missiles,  bombs,  warheads,  mortar  rounds,  ar- 
tillery ammunition,  small  arms  ammunition,  grenades,  mines,  torpedoes, 
depth  charges,  cluster  munitions  and  dispensers,  demolition  charges,  and 
devices  and  components  thereof,  and 

"(B)  does  not  include  wholly  inert  items,  improvised  explosive  devices, 
and  nuclear  weapons,  nuclear  devices,  and  nuclear  components,  except  that 
the  term  does  include  non-nuclear  components  of  nuclear  devices  that  are 
managed  under  the  nuclear  weapons  program  of  the  Department  of  Energy 
after  all  required  sanitization  operations  under  the  Atomic  Energy  Act  of 
1954  (42  U.S.C.  2011,  et  seq.)  have  been  completed. 
"(2)  The  term  'operational  range'  means — 

"(A)  a  range  that  is  used  for  range  activities,  or 


LVII 

"(B)  a  range  that  is  not  currently  being  used  for  range  activities,  but 
that  is  still  considered  by  the  Secretary  concerned  to  be  a  range,  is  under 
the  jurisdiction,  custody,  or  control  of  the  Secretary  concerned,  and  has  not 
been  put  to  a  new  use  that  is  incompatible  with  range  activities. 
"(3)  The  term  'range'  means  a  designated  land  or  water  area  set  aside,  man- 
aged, and  used  to  conduct  research,  development,  testing,  and  evaluation  of 
military  munitions,  other  ordnance,  or  weapon  systems,  or  to  train  military  per- 
sonnel in  their  use  and  handling.  Ranges  include  firing  lines  and  positions,  ma- 
neuver areas,  firing  lanes,  test  pads,  detonation  pads,  impact  areas,  electronic 
scoring  sites,  buffer  zones  with  restricted  access  and  exclusionary  areas,  and 
airspace  areas  designated  for  military  use  according  to  regulations  and  proce- 
dures established  by  the  Federal  Aviation  Administration  such  as  special  use 
airspace  areas,  military  training  routes,  or  other  associated  airspace. 

"(4)  The  term  'unexploded  ordnance'  means  military  munitions  that — 

"(A)  have  been  primed,  fused,  armed,  or  otherwise  prepared  for  action; 
"(B)  have  been  fired,  dropped,  launched,  projected,  or  placed  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  constitute  a  hazard  to  operations,  installations,  personnel,  or 
material;  and 

"(C)  remain  unexploded  either  by  malfunction,  design,  or  any  other 
cause.", 
(c)  Conforming  Amendments. — 

(1)  Subsection  (e)  of  section  2710  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is 
amended — 

(A)  by  striking  paragraphs  (3),  (5),  and  (9);  and 

(B)  by  redesignating  paragraphs  (4),  (6),  (7),  (8),  and  (10)  as  paragraphs 
(3),  (4),  (5),  (6),  and  (7),  respectively. 

(2)  Subsection  (d)  of  section  313  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act 
for  Fiscal  Year  2002  (Public  Law  107-107;  115  Stat.  1053),  is  amended  by  in- 
serting after  "311"  the  following:  ",  or  in  section  101  of  title  10,  United  States 
Code". 

(3)  Title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  further  amended  as  follows: 

(A)  Subsection  (c)  of  section  2801  is  amended  by  striking  paragraph  (4). 

(B)  Sections  181,  229,  1107,  2216,  2218,  2306b,  2366.  2399,  2534,  2667, 
and  10216  are  amended  by  striking  "congressional  defense  committees" 
each  place  it  appears  and  inserting  "appropriate  committees  of  Congress". 

(C)  Subsection  (d)(2)  of  section  181  is  amended — 

(i)  by  striking  "subsection:  (A)  The"  and  inserting  "subsection,  the"; 
and 

(ii)  by  striking  paragraph  (B). 

(D)  Subsection  (f)  of  section  229  is  repealed. 

(E)  Subsection  (f)(4)  of  section  1107  is  amended  by  striking  subpara- 
graph (C). 

(F)  Subsection  (j)  of  section  2216  is  amended  by  striking  paragraph  (3). 

(G)  Subsection  (1)  of  section  2218  is  amended — 
(i)  by  striking  paragraph  (4);  and 

(ii)  by  redesignating  paragraph  (5)  as  paragraph  (4). 
(H)  Subsection  (1)  of  section  2306b  is  amended — 

(i)  by  striking  paragraph  (9);  and 

(ii)  by  redesignating  paragraph  (10)  as  paragraph  (9). 
(I)  Subsection  (e)  of  section  2366  is  amended  by  striking  paragraph  (7). 
(J)  Subsection  (h)  of  section  2399  is  amended — 

(i)  in  paragraph  (1),  by  striking  "section:  (1)  The"  and  inserting 
"section,  the";  and 

(ii)  by  striking  paragraph  (2). 
(K)  Subsection  (h)  of  section  2667  is  amended — 

(i)  by  striking  paragraphs  (1)  and  (2);  and 

(ii)  by  striking  "section:  (3)  The"  and  inserting  "section,  the". 

(4)  Title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  further  amended  as  follows: 

(A)  Subsection  (f)  of  section  2490a  is  amended — 

(i)  by  striking  "section:  (1)  The"  and  inserting  "section,  the";  and 
(ii)  by  striking  paragraph  (2). 

(B)  Section  2705  is  amended  by  striking  subsection  (h). 

(C)  Section  2871  is  amended — 

(i)  by  striking  paragraph  (2);  and 

(ii)  by  redesignating  paragraphs  (3),  (4),  (5),  (6),  (7),  and  (8)  as 
paragraphs  (2),  (3),  (4),  (5),  (6),  and  (7),  respectively. 


LVIII 

SEC.  1042.  IMPROVING  READENfESS  IN  PROVIDING  FIREFIGHTING  SERVICES. 

Section  2465(b)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the 
end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(4)  to  a  contract  for  the  performance  of  a  firefighting  function  for  a  period 
of  one  year  or  less  to  fill  vacant  positions  created  by  deployed  military  fire  fight- 
ers.". 

SEC.  1043.  DOCUMENTS,  HISTORICAL  ARTIFACTS,  AND  OBSOLETE  OR  SURPLUS  MATERIEL: 
LOAN,  DONATION,  OR  EXCHANGE. 

(a)  In  General. — Section  2572  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  the  heading,  by  striking  "condemned  or  obsolete  combat"  and  insert- 
ing "obsolete  or  surplus"; 

(2)  in  subsection  (a),  by  striking  "subsection  (c)"  and  inserting  "subsection 
(c)(1)"; 

(3)  in  subsection  (b),  by  striking  "subsection  (c)"  and  inserting  "subsection 
(c)(2)";  and 

(4)  in  subsection  (c) — 

(A)  by  striking  "(c)  This  section"  and  "(c)(1)  Subsection  (a)";  and 

(B)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(2)  Subsection  (b)  applies  to  the  following  t3T)es  of  property  held  by  a  mili- 
tary department  or  the  Coast  Guard:  books,  manuscripts,  works  of  art,  histori- 
cal artifacts,  drawings,  plans,  models,  and  obsolete  or  surplus  materiel.". 

(b)  Conforming  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  chapter 
153  of  such  title  is  amended  by  amending  the  item  relating  to  section  2572  to  read 
as  follows: 

"2572.  Documents,  historical  artifacts,  and  obsolete  or  surplus  combat  materiel;  loan,  gift,  or  exchange.". 

SEC.  1044.  AUTHORITY  TO  ENSURE  DEMILITARIZATION  OF  SIGNIFICANT  MILITARY  EQUIP- 
MENT FORMERLY  OWNED  BY  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE. 

(a)  In  General. — Chapter  153  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
inserting  after  section  2582  the  following  new  section: 

"§  2583.  Continued  authority  to  require  demilitarization  of  significant  mili- 
tary equipment  after  disposal 

"(a)  Authority  To  Require  Demilitarizaton. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may 
require  any  person  in  possession  of  significant  military  equipment  formerly  owned 
by  the  Department  of  Defense — 

"(1)  to  demilitarize  the  equipment; 

"(2)  to  have  the  equipment  demilitarized  by  a  third  party;  or 
"(3)  to  return  the  equipment  to  the  United  States  Government  for  demili- 
tarization. 

"(b)  Cost  and  Validation  of  Demilitarization. — When  the  demilitarization  of 
significant  military  equipment  is  carried  out  by  the  person  in  possession  of  the 
equipment  pursuant  to  paragraph  (1)  or  (2)  of  subsection  (a),  the  person  shall  be 
solely  responsible  for  all  demilitarization  costs,  and  the  United  States  shall  have  the 
right  to  validate  that  the  equipment  has  been  demilitarized. 

"(c)  Return  of  Equipment  to  the  U.S.  Government. — When  the  Secretary  of 
Defense  requires  the  return  of  significant  military  equipment  for  demilitarization  by 
the  United  States  Government,  the  Secretary  shall  bear  all  costs  to  transport  and 
demilitarize  the  equipment.  If  the  person  in  possession  of  the  significant  military 
equipment  obtained  the  property  in  the  manner  authorized  by  law  or  regulation  and 
the  Secretary  determines  that  the  cost  to  demilitarize  and  return  the  property  to 
the  person  is  prohibitive,  the  Secretary  shall  reimburse  the  person  for  the  fair  mar- 
ket value  of  the  property  or,  if  the  fair  market  value  is  not  readily  ascertainable, 
the  purchase  cost  of  the  property  and  for  the  reasonable  transportation  costs  in- 
curred by  the  person  to  purchase  the  equipment. 

"(d)  Establishment  of  Demilitarizaton  Standards. — The  Secretary  of  De- 
fense may  prescribe  by  regulation  what  constitutes  demilitarization  for  each  tj^e  of 
significant  military  equipment. 

"(e)  Exceptions. — This  section  does  not  apply — 

"(1)  when  a  person  is  in  possession  of  significant  equipment  formerly  owned 
by  the  Department  of  Defense  for  the  purpose  of  demilitarizing  the  equipment 
pursuant  to  a  U.S.  Government  contract; 

"(2)  to  small  arms  weapons  issued  under  the  Defense  Civilian  Marksman- 
ship Program  established  in  title  36,  United  States  Code; 

"(3)  to  issues  by  the  Department  of  Defense  to  museums  where  demili- 
tarization has  been  performed  in  accordance  with  departmental  regulations;  and 


LIX 

"(4)  to  other  issues  and  undemilitarized  significant  military  equipment 
under  the  provisions  of  departmental  regulations. 

"(f)  Definition  of  Significant  Military  Equipment. — In  this  section,  the  term 
'significant  military  equipment'  means — 

"(1)  an  article  for  which  special  export  controls  are  warranted  under  the 
Arms  Export  Control  Act  (22  U.S.C.  2751  et  seq.)  because  of  its  capacity  for  sub- 
stantial military  utility  or  capability,  as  identified  on  the  United  States  Muni- 
tions List  maintained  under  sect  121.1  of  title  22,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations; 
and 

"(2)  any  other  article  designated  by  the  Department  of  Defense  as  requiring 
demilitarization  before  its  disposal.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"2583.  Continued  authority  to  require  demilitarization  of  significant  military  equipment  after  disposal.". 

TITLE  XI— DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  CIVILIAN 
PERSONNEL 

SEC.  1101.  POSITION  VACANCY  PROMOTION  CONSIDERATION  IN  TEME  OF  WAR  OR  NATIONAL 
EMERGENCY. 

(a)  Vacancy  Promotion  Consideration. — Section  14317  of  title  10,  United 
States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  in  subsection  (d),  by  striking  "If  a  reserve  officer"  and  inserting  "Except 
as  provided  in  subsection  (e),  if  a  reserve  officer";  and 

(2)  in  subsection  (e),  by  inserting  "or,  in  the  case  of  an  officer  who  has  been 
ordered  to  or  is  serving  on  active  duty  in  support  of  a  contingency  operation  as 
defined  in  section  lOKaKlS)  of  this  title,  a  vacancy  promotion  board"  after 
"mandatory  promotion  board". 

(b)  Conforming  Amendment. — Paragraph  (1)  of  section  14315(a)  of  such  title 
is  amended  by  striking  "or,  as  determined  by  the  Secretary  concerned,  is  available 
to  occupy  a  position"  and  inserting  "or,  under  regulations  prescribed  by  the  Sec- 
retary concerned,  is  recommended  to  occupy  a  position". 

TITLE  XII— MATTERS  RELATING  TO  OTHER  NATIONS 

Subtitle  A — Matters  Related  to  Allies  and  Friendly  Foreign 

Nations 

SEC.  1201.  EXPANSION  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  CONDUCT  THE  ARCTIC  MILITARY  ENVIRONMENTAL 
COOPERATION  PROGRAM. 

Section  327  of  the  Strom  Thurmond  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fis- 
cal Year  1999  (Public  Law  No.  105-261;  112  Stat.  1965),  is  amended— 

(1)  in  the  title,  by  inserting  "AND  WESTERN  PACIFIC"  after  "ARCTIC"; 

(2)  by  striking  subsections  (b)  and  (c); 

(3)  by  redesignating  subsection  (a)  as  subsection  (b); 

(4)  by  inserting  after  the  title  the  following  new  subsection  (a): 

"(a)  Authority  To  Conduct  Program. — Subject  to  subsection  (b),  the  Secretary 
of  Defense,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  may  conduct  the  Arctic 
and  Western  Pacific  Military  Environmental  Cooperation  Program.";  and 

(5)  in  subsection  (b),  as  redesignated  by  paragraph  (3) — 

(A)  in  paragraph  (1) — 

(i)  by  inserting  "and  Western  Pacific"  after  "Subject  to  paragraph 
(2),  activities  under  the  Arctic"; 

(ii)  by  inserting  "and  assistance"  after  "shall  include  cooperative"; 
and 

(iii)  by  striking  "in  the  Arctic  Region";  and 

(B)  in  paragraph  (2) — 

(i)  by  inserting  "Western  Pacific"  after  "Activities  under  the  Arctic"; 
and 

(ii)  by  striking  "for  purposes  for  which  funds  for  Cooperative 
Threat  Reduction  programs  have  been  denied  or  are  prohibited,  includ- 
ing the  purposes". 


LX 

SEC.  1202.  AUTHORITY  TO  WAIVE  DOMESTIC  SOURCE  OR  CONTENT  REQUIREMENTS. 

(a)  In  General. — Subchapter  V  of  chapter  148  of  title  10,  United  States  Code, 
is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§  2539c.  Waiver  of  domestic  source  or  content  requirements 

"(a)  Authority. — Except  as  provided  in  subsection  if),  the  Secretary  of  Defense 
may  waive  the  application  of  any  domestic  source  requirement  or  domestic  content 
requirement  referred  to  in  subsection  (b)  and  thereby  authorize  the  procurement  of 
items  that  are  grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  produced,  or  manufactured — 

"(1)  in  a  foreign  country  that  has  a  reciprocal  defense  procurement  memo- 
randum of  understanding  or  agreement  with  the  United  States; 

"(2)  in  a  foreign  country  that  has  a  reciprocal  defense  procurement  memo- 
randum of  understanding  or  agreement  with  the  United  States  substantially 
from  components  and  materials  grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  produced,  or  manu- 
factured in  the  United  States  or  any  foreign  country  that  has  a  reciprocal  de- 
fense procurement  memorandum  of  understanding  or  agreement  with  the 
United  States;  or 

"(3)  in  the  United  States   substantially  from  components  and  materials 
grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  produced,  or  manufactured  in  the  United  States  or 
any  foreign  country  that  has  a  reciprocal  defense  procurement  memorandum  of 
understanding  or  agreement  with  the  United  States. 
"(b)  Covered  Requirements. — For  purposes  of  this  section: 

"(1)  A  domestic  source  requirement  is  any  requirement  under  law  that  the 
Department  of  Defense  satisfy  its  requirements  for  an  item  by  procuring  an 
item  that  is  grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  produced,  or  manufactured  in  the 
United  States  or  by  a  manufacturer  that  is  a  part  of  the  national  technology 
and  industrial  base  (as  defined  in  section  2500(1)  of  this  title). 

"(2)  A  domestic  content  requirement  is  any  requirement  under  law  that  the 
Department  of  Defense  satisfy  its  requirements  for  an  item  by  procuring  an 
item  produced  or  manufactured  partly  or  wholly  from  components  and  materials 
grown,  reprocessed,  reused,  produced,  or  manufactured  in  the  United  States. 
"(c)  Applicability. — The  authority  of  the  Secretary  to  waive  the  application  of 
a  domestic  source  or  content  requirements  under  subsection  (a)  applies  to  the  pro- 
curement of  items  for  which  the  Secretary  of  Defense  determines  that — 

"(1)  application  of  the  requirement  would  impede  the  reciprocal  procure- 
ment of  defense  items  under  a  memorandum  of  understanding  providing  for  re- 
ciprocal procurement  of  defense  items  between  a  foreign  country  and  the  United 
States  in  accordance  with  section  2531  of  this  title;  and 

"(2)  such  country  does  not  discriminate  against  defense  items  produced  in 
the  United  States  to  a  greater  degree  than  the  United  States  discriminates 
against  defense  items  produced  in  that  country. 

"(d)  Laws  Not  Waivable. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  not  exercise  the  au- 
thority under  subsection  (a)  to  waive  any  domestic  source  or  content  requirement 
contained  in  any  of  the  following  laws: 

"(1)  The  Small  Business  Act  (15  U.S.C.  631  et  seq.). 
"(2)  The  Javits-Wagner-O'Day  Act  (41  U.S.C.  et  seq.). 
"(3)  Sections  2533a,  7309  and  7310  of  this  title. 
"(e)  Relationship  to  Other  Waiver  Authority. — The  authority  under  sub- 
section (a)  to  waive  a  domestic  source  requirement  or  domestic  content  requirement 
is  in  addition  to  any  other  authority  to  waive  such  requirement. 

"(f)  Construction  with  Respect  to  Later  Enacted  Laws. — This  section  may 
not  be  construed  as  being  inapplicable  to  a  domestic  source  requirement  or  domestic 
content  requirement  that  is  set  forth  in  a  law  enacted  after  the  enactment  of  this 
section  solely  on  the  basis  of  the  later  enactment.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  sub- 
chapter is  amended  by  inserting  after  the  item  relating  to  section  2539b  the  follow- 
ing new  item: 

"2539c.  Waiver  of  domestic  source  or  content  requirements.". 

SEC.  1203.  authority  TO  EXPEND  FUNDS  TO  RECOGNIZE  SUPERIOR  NONCOMBAT  ACHIEVE- 
MENTS OR  PERFORMANCE  BY  MEMBERS  OF  FRIENDLY  FOREIGN  FORCES  AND 
OTHER  FOREIGN  NATIONALS. 

(a)  In  General — Chapter  53  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  in- 
serting after  section  1051  the  following  new  section: 


LXI 

"§  1051a.  Bilateral  or  regional  cooperation  programs:  expenditure  of  funds 
to  recognize  superior  noncombat  achievements  or  performance 

"(a)  General  Authority. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  expend  operations 
and  maintenance  funds  to  recognize  superior  noncombat  achievements  or  perform- 
ance, by  members  of  friendly  foreign  forces  and  other  foreign  nationals,  that  signifi- 
cantly enhance  or  support  the  National  Security  Strategy  of  the  United  States.  Ac- 
tivities that  may  be  recognized  include  superior  achievement  or  performance  that — 
"(1)  plays  a  crucial  role  in  shaping  the  international  security  environment 
in  ways  that  protect  and  promote  United  States  interests; 

"(2)  supports  or  enhances  United  States  overseas  presence  and  peacetime 
engagement  activities  such  as  defense  cooperation  initiatives,  security  assist- 
ance training  and  programs,  and  training  and  exercises  with  United  States 
Armed  Forces; 

"(3)  helps  to  deter  aggression  and  coercion,  build  coalitions,  promote  re- 
gional stability;  and 

"(4)  serves  as  role  models  for  appropriate  conduct  by  militaries  in  emerging 
democracies. 

"(b)  Limitations. — Expenditures  for  the  purchase  or  production  of  suitable  me- 
mentos under  this  section  shall  not  exceed  the  "minimal  value"  established  in  ac- 
cordance with  section  7342(a)(5)  of  title  5.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  inserting  after  the  item  relating  to  section  1051  the  following  new 
item: 

"1051a.   Bilateral   or  regional  cooperation   programs:   expenditure  of  funds   to   recognize  superior   noncombat 
achievements  or  performance.". 

SEC.  1204.  ADMINISTRATIVE  SUPPORT  AND  SERVICES  FOR  FOREIGN  LIAISON  OFFICERS. 

(a)  Authority. — Section  1051a  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  to 
read  as  follows: 

"§  1051a.  Administrative  support  and  services  for  foreign  liaison  officers 

"(a)  Authority. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  provide  administrative  services 
and  support  for  the  performance  of  duties  by  any  liaison  officer  of  another  nation 
while  the  liaison  officer  is  assigned  to  the  headquarters  of  combatant  command, 
component  command,  or  subordinate  operational  command  of  the  United  States. 

"(b)  Travel,  Subsistence,  and  Other  Expenses. — The  Secretary  may  pay  the 
travel,  subsistence,  amd  similar  personal  expenses  of  a  liaison  officer  of  a  developing 
nation  involved  in  a  coalition  while  the  liaison  officer  is  assigned  temporarily  to  the 
headquarters  of  a  combatant  command,  component  command,  or  subordinate  oper- 
ational command  of  the  United  States,  in  connection  with  the  planning  for,  or  con- 
duct of,  a  coalition  operation,  if  the  assignment  is  requested  by  the  commander  of 
the  combatant  command. 

"(c)  Reimbursement. — To  the  extent  that  the  Secretary  determines  appropriate, 
the  Secretary  may  provide  the  services  and  support  authorized  under  subsection  (a) 
and  the  expenses  authorized  by  subsection  (b)  with  or  without  reimbursement  from 
(or  on  behalf  of)  the  recipients. 

"(d)  Definitions. — In  this  section: 

"(1)  The  term  'administrative  services  and  support'  includes  base  or  instal- 
lation support  services,  office  space,  utilities,  copying  services,  fire  and  police 

protection,  and  computer  support. 

"(2)  The  term  'coalition'  means  an  ad  hoc  arrangement  between  or  among 

the  United  States  and  one  or  more  other  nations  for  common  action.". 

SEC.  1205.  GEORGE  C.  MARSHALL  EUROPEAN  CENTER  FOR  SECURITY  STUDIES. 

Section  1306  (b)(1)  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year 
1995  (Public  Law  103-337;  108  Stat.  2892)  is  amended  by  striking  "military  officers 
and  civilian  officials  of  cooperation  partner  states  of  the  North  Atlantic  Council  or 
the  Partnership  for  Peace"  and  inserting  "foreign  participants". 

SEC.    1206.   RESTRICTIONS   ON  PERMANENT  TRANSFER  OF  SIGNIFICANT  MILITARY  EQUIP- 
MENT. 

(a)  In  General. — Chapter  138  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§23501.  Restrictions  on  permanent  transfer  of  significant  military  equip- 
ment 

"(a)  Transfer  of  Significant  Military  Equipment. — Lethal  and  non-lethal 
military  equipment  designated  as  significant  military  equipment  (SME),  may  be 
permanently  transferred,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  only  when 


LXII 

the  transaction  is  conducted  as  replacement  in  kind,  where  the  equipment  is  iden- 
tical, and  in  situations  where  the  recipient  country  has  an  existing  inventory  for  the 
SME  in  question. 

"(b)  Export  and  Transfer  Laws. — The  authority  to  transfer  SME  in  accord- 
ance with  subsection  (a)  is  subject  to  all  other  applicable  laws  and  regulations  per- 
taining to  export  and  transfers.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"23501.  Restrictions  on  permanent  transfer  of  significant  military  equipment". 

SEC.  1207.  AMENDMENT  TO  AUTHORITY  FOR  ACCEPTANCE  BY  ASIA-PACIFIC  CENTER  FOR  SE- 
CURITY STUDIES  OF  FOREIGN  GIFTS  AND  DONATIONS. 

Section  2611  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

( 1 )  by  striking  "foreign"  from — 

(A)  the  title; 

(B)  subsection  (a)  in  both  places  it  appears; 

(C)  subsection  (c); 

(D)  subsection  (f>^ 

(i)  in  the  heading;  and 

(ii)  the  first  place  it  appears;  and 

( E )  from  the  section  title  in  the  table  of  sections  in  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter; 

(2)  in  subsection  (a)(1),  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  sentence:  "Such 
donations  may  be  accepted  from  any  agency  of  the  Federal  Government,  any 
State  or  local  government,  any  foreign  government,  any  foundation  or  other 
charitable  organization  (including  any  that  is  organized  or  operates  under  the 
laws  of  a  foreign  country),  or  any  other  private  source  in  the  United  States  or 
a  foreign  country.";  and 

(3)  in  subsection  (f),  by  striking  all  after  "services"  and  inserting  a  period. 

SEC.  1208.  ADDITION  OF  INDIVIDUALS  AUTHORIZED  TO  RECEIVE  CHECK  CASHING  AND  EX- 
CHANGES OF  FOREIGN  CURRENCY. 

Section  3342(b)  of  title  31,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  by  striking  "or"  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (6); 

(2)  by  striking  the  period  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (7)  and  inserting  ";  or"; 
and 

(3)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

"(8)  a  military  member  of  an  allied  or  coalition  nation  who  is  part  of  a  joint 
operation,  joint  exercise,  humanitarian  or  peacekeeping  mission  with  the  mili- 
tary forces  of  the  United  States,  provided  that  such  accommodation  has  been 
approved  by  the  senior  United  States  military  commander  assigned  to  the  joint 
operation  or  mission,  that  the  allied  or  coalition  nation  has  guaranteed  payment 
for  any  deficiency  resulting  from  such  accommodation,  and  that  accommoda- 
tions of  negotiable  instruments  are  limited  to  negotiable  instruments  drawn  on 
financial  institutions  located  in  the  United  States  or  on  foreign  branches  of  such 
institutions.". 

SEC.  1209.  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  REGIONAL  DEFENSE  COUNTERTERRORISM  FELLOWSHIP 
PROGRAM. 

The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  pay  for  all  costs  associated  with  the  attendance 
of  foreign  military  officers,  ministry  of  defense  officials,  and  security  officials  at 
United  States  military  educational  institutions,  regional  centers,  conferences,  semi- 
nars, or  other  training  programs  conducted  under  the  Regional  Defense 
Counterterrorism  Fellowship  Program,  including  transportation,  travel,  and  subsist- 
ence costs. 

SEC.  1210.  LOGISTICS  SUPPORT  FOR  FRIENDLY  NATIONS. 

Section  2342  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end 
the  following  new  subsection: 

"(e)  Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law  or  regulation,  the  Secretary  of 
Defense,  when  in  the  best  interests  of  the  United  States  and  subject  to  the  availabil- 
ity of  appropriations,  may  provide  logistics  support,  supplies  and  services,  on  a  re- 
imbursable or  non-reimbursable  basis,  without  a  completed  cross-servicing  or  for- 
eign military  sales  agreement,  to  the  following  countries  participating,  with  or  on 
behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  an  exercise,  a  contingency  operation,  as  defined  by 
section  101  of  this  title,  or  war — 

"(1)  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization  bodies  and  member  countries; 
"(2)  Countries  permitting  stationing  of  United  States  Armed  Forces,  impor- 
tation of  United  States  military  equipment  and  materials  and  porting  of  ships; 


LXIII 

"(3)  Counties  holding  a  defense  alliance  with  the  United  States;  and 
"(4)  Countries  hosting  military  exercises  involving  the  United  States.". 

Subtitle  B— Other  Matters 

SEC.  1221.  REPEAL  OF  THE  AUTHORIZATION  FOR  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  CENTER  FOR 
THE  STUDY  OF  CHINESE  MILITARY  AFFAIRS. 

Section  914  of  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2000 
(Public  Law  106-65;  113  Stat.  721),  is  repealed. 

TITLE  XIII— HOMELAND  SECURITY 

Sec.  1301.  Sales  of  chemical  and  biological  defense  articles  and  services  to  state  and  local  governments. 

SEC.   1301.  SALES  OF  CHEMICAL  AND  BIOLOGICAL  DEFENSE  ARTICLES  AND  SERVICES  TO 
STATE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS. 

(a)  Authority  for  Procurement  and  Sales. — Chapter  18  of  title  10,  United 
States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§383.  Sales  of  chemical  and  biological  defense  articles  and  services  to 
State  and  local  governments 

"(a)  Procurement  Through  the  Department  of  Defense. — The  Secretary  of 
Defense  shall  establish  procedures  in  accordance  with  this  subsection  under  which 
States  and  units  of  local  government  may  purchase  articles  suitable  for  chemical 
and  biological  defense  and  operator  training,  repair  and  maintenance,  and  similar 
services  in  connection  with  such  articles,  through  the  Department  of  Defense. 

"(b)  Sales  From  Inventories. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  sell  articles  suit- 
able for  chemical  and  biological  defense  in  Department  of  Defense  inventories  to 
States  and  units  of  local  government  at  a  price  based  upon  the  estimated  or  actual 
costs  incurred  by  the  Department  in  providing  the  articles. 

"(c)  Provision  of  Services. — The  Secretary  may  provide,  within  any  State  or 
unit  of  local  government,  operator  training,  repair  and  maintenance,  and  similar 
services  in  connection  wdth  articles  suitable  for  chemical  and  biological  defense  at 
a  price  based  upon  the  estimated  or  actual  costs  incurred  by  the  Department  in  pro- 
viding the  services. 

"(d)  Payment  for  Articles  and  Services. — Payment  for  articles  and  services 
under  this  section  may  be  in  advance  or  on  providing  the  articles  or  services. 

"(e)  Reimbursement  of  Administrative  Costs. — In  the  case  of  any  purchase 
made  by  a  State  or  unit  of  local  government  under  this  section,  the  Secretary  may 
require  the  State  or  unit  of  local  government  to  reimburse  the  Department  of  De- 
fense for  administrative  costs  to  the  Department  of  such  purchase. 

"(f)  Credit  of  Funds  from  Sales. — Funds  received  by  the  Department  of  De- 
fense from  sales  of  articles  under  subsection  (b)  shall  be  credited  to  the  military  de- 
partment. Defense  Agency,  or  Department  of  Defense  Field  Activity  that  sold  the 
articles  so  as  to  merge  vidth  and  become  available  for  the  same  purposes  and  period 
as  the  accounts  to  which  they  are  credited,  and  shall  be  available  until  expended 
only  for  the  acquisition  of  articles  suitable  for  chemical  and  biological  defense. 

"(g)  Credit  of  Funds  for  Services. — Funds  received  for  the  provision  of  serv- 
ices under  subsection  (c)  shall  be  credited  to  the  military  department.  Defense  Agen- 
cy, or  Department  of  Defense  Field  Activity  that  provided  the  services  and  shall  be 
available  until  expended  only  for  the  provision  of  such  services. 

"(h)  Definitions. — In  this  section: 

"(1)  The  terms  'articles  suitable  for  chemical  and  biological  defense'  and 

'services'  have  the  meaning  given  those  terms  in  regulations  as  prescribed  by 

the  Secretary  of  Defense. 

"(2)  The  term  'State'  has  the  meaning  given  the  term  in  section  381(d)(l)of  this 

title. 

"(3)  The  term  'unit  of  local  government'  has  the  meaning  given  the  term  in  sec- 
tion 381(d)(2)  of  this  title.". 

"(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such 
chapter  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"383.  Sales  of  chemical  and  biological  defense  articles  and  services  to  State  and  local  governments.". 


LXIV 

DIVISION  B— MILITARY  CONSTRUCTION 
AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC.  2001.  SHORT  TITLE. 

This  division  may  be  cited  as  the  "Military  Construction  Authorization  Act  for 
Fiscal  Year  2004". 

TITLE  XXI— ARMY 

SEC.  2101.  AUTHORIZED  ARMY  CONSTRUCTION  AND  LAND  ACQUISITION  PROJECTS. 

(a)  Inside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2104(a)(1),  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  may 
acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  installa- 
tions or  locations  inside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amoiints,  set  forth  in  the  fol- 
lowing table: 

Army:  Inside  the  United  States 


state 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Alabama  

Alaska  

Georgia  

Hawaii  

Kansas  

Kentucky  

Louisiana 

Maryland  

New  York 

Redstone  Arsenal  

$5,500,000 

$138,800,000 

$30,000,000 

$64,500,000 
$1,400,000 

$119,400,000 

$40,000,000 

$3,500,000 

$72,000,000 

$9,600,000 

$114,500,000 

$152,000,000 

$3,500,000 

$47,000,000 

$9,000,000 

$3,900,000 

Fort  Wainwright 

Fort  Benning 

Fort  Stewart/Hunter  Army 
Air  Field  

Helemano  Military  Reserva- 
tion. 
Schofield  Barracks  

Fort  Riley  

Fort  Knox  

Fort  Polk  

Fort  Meade 

Fort  Drum  

North  Carolina  

Fort  Bragg 

Oklahoma  

Texas  

Virginia  

Washington  

Fort  Sill  

Fort  Hood  

Fort  Myer  

Fort  Lewis  

Total  

$814,600,000 

(b)  Outside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2104(a)(2),  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  may 
acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  installa- 
tions or  locations  outside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amounts,  set  forth  in  the 
following  table: 


Army 

:  Outside  tlie  United  States 

Country 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Germany  

Italy  

Area    Support    Group,    Bam- 
berg. 

Darmstadt 

Grafenwoehr  

Heidelberg 

Hohenfels  

Mannheim  

Schweinfurt  

Wuerzburg  

Aviano  Air  Base  

$17,900,000 

$7,700,000 
$76,000,000 
$17,000,000 
$13,200,000 
$4,300,000 
$7,500,000 
$18,500,000 
$15,500,000 

LXV 


Army:  Outside  the  United  States — Continued 


Country 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Korea  

Kwajalein  Atoll  

Livomo  

Camp  Casey 

$22,000,000 

$86,000,000 

$29,000,000 

9,400,000 

Camp  Hovey  

Kwajalein  Atoll 

Total  

$324,000,000 

(c)  Unspecified  Worldwide. — (1)  Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2104(a)(3)  and  amounts,  not  to  exceed 
$150,000,000  provided  under  Public  Law  107-38,  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  may  ac- 
quire personal  services  and  real  property,  and  may  provide  for  the  operation  and 
construction  of  critical  infrastructure  and  allied  systems  to  ensure  essential  govern- 
mental functions  for  the  installation  or  location,  and  in  the  amount,  set  forth  in  the 
following  table: 

Army:  Unspecified  Worldwide 


Location 

Installation 

Amount 

Worldwide  Unspecified  .. 

Unspecified  Worldwide  

$663,900,000 

Total  

$663,900,000 

(2)  Military  Construction  projects,  and  those  funded  in  whole  or  in  part  under 
Public  Law  107-38,  containing  national  security  classified  information  and  for  the 
purposes  of  preventing,  responding  to,  or  countering  the  effects  of  terrorist  attacks 
shall  comply,  to  the  extent  practical,  with  applicable  Federal,  State,  and  local  laws 
and  other  orders  regarding  regulatory  compliance,  consultation,  coordination  and  in- 
spection; provided  that  in  carrying  out  such  projects — 

(A)  no  such  compliance,  consultation,  coordination  or  inspection  may  expose, 
endanger,  or  otherwise  compromise  national  security;  and 

(B)  any  anticipated  exception  to  such  compliance,  consultation,  coordination 
or  inspection  shall  be  addressed  in  project  documentation  submitted  to  Congress 
under  paragraph  (3). 

(3)  Where  applicable,  project  documentation  submitted  to  the  congressional  de- 
fense committees  shall  satisfy  general  provisions  of  section  1001  of  Public  Law  107- 
117  and  address  any  exception  to  compliance,  consultation,  coordination  or  inspec- 
tion anticipated  by  paragraph  (2). 

SEC.  2102.  FAMILY  HOUSING. 

(a)  Construction  and  Acquisition. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to 
the  authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2104(a)(6)(A),  the  Secretary  of  the 
Army  may  construct  or  acquire  family  housing  units  (including  land  acquisition  and 
supporting  facilities)  at  the  installations  or  locations,  for  the  purposes  and  in  the 
amounts,  set  forth  in  the  following  table: 

Army:  Family  Housing 


State  or  Country 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Purpose 

Amount 

Alaska  

Arizona  

Kentucky  

New  Mexico  

Fort  Wainwright  

100  Units  .... 
160  Units  .... 
178  Units  .... 

58  Units   

Total:  .... 

$44,000,000 
$27,000,000 
$41,000,000 

$14,600,000 

Fort  Huachuca  

Fort  Knox 

White  Sands  Missile 
Range  

$126,600,000 

(b)  Planning  and  Design. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the  au- 
thorization of  appropriations  in  section  2104(a)(6)(A),  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  may 


LXVI 

carry  out  architectural  and  engineering  services  and  construction  design  activities 
with  respect  to  the  construction  or  improvement  of  family  housing  units  in  an 
amount  not  to  exceed  $34,488,000. 

SEC.  2103.  IMPROVEMENTS  TO  MILITARY  FAMILY  HOUSING  UNITS. 

Subject  to  section  2825  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  and  using  amounts  ap- 
propriated pursuant  to  the  authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2104(a)(6)(A), 
the  Secretary  of  the  Army  may  improve  existing  military  family  housing  units  in 
an  amount  not  to  exceed  $197,803,000. 

SEC.  2104.  AUTHORIZATION  OF  APPROPRIATIONS,  ARMY. 

(a)  In  General. — Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal 
years  beginning  after  September  30,  2003,  for  military  construction,  land  acquisition 
and  military  family  housing  functions  of  the  Department  of  the  Army  in  the  total 
amount  of  $2,935,927,000  as  follows: 

(1)  For  military  construction  projects  inside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2101(a),  $721,600,000. 

(2)  For  military  construction  projects  outside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2101(b),  $314,000,000. 

(3)  For  military  construction  projects  at  unspecified  worldwide  locations  au- 
thorized by  section  2101(c),  $178,700,000. 

(4)  For  unspecified  minor  construction  projects  authorized  by  section  2805 
of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $20,000,000. 

(5)  For  architectural  and  engineering  services  and  construction  design 
under  section  2807  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $122,710,000. 

(6)  For  military  family  housing  functions: 

(A)  For  construction  and  acquisition,  planning  and  design,  and  im- 
provement of  military  family  housing  and  facilities,  $356,891,000. 

(B)  For  support  of  military  family  housing  (including  the  functions  de- 
scribed in  section  2833  of  title  10,  United  States  Code),  $1,043,026,000. 

(7)  For  the  construction  of  phase  3  of  a  barracks  complex,  D  Street,  at  Fort 
Richardson,  Alaska,  authorized  by  section  2101(a)  of  the  Military  Construction 
Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2002  (division  B  of  Public  Law  107-107;  115 
Stat.  1281),  $33,000,000. 

(8)  For  the  construction  of  phase  2  of  a  barracks  complex,  Capron  Road,  at 
Schofield  Barracks,  Hawaii,  authorized  by  section  2101(a)  of  the  Military  Con- 
struction Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2002  (division  B  of  Public  Law  107- 
107;  115  Stat.  1283),  as  amended  by  section  2105  of  this  Act,  $49,000,000. 

(9)  For  the  construction  of  phase  2  of  a  barracks  complex,  Range  Road,  at 
Fort  Campbell,  Kentucky,  authorized  by  section  2101(a)  of  the  Bob  Stump  Na- 
tional Defense  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2003  (division  B  of  Public  Law 
107-314;  116  Stat.  2681),  $49,000,000. 

(10)  For  the  construction  of  phase  3  of  a  barracks  complex,  17th  &  B 
Streets,  at  Fort  Lewis,  Washington,  authorized  by  section  2101(a)  of  the  Mili- 
tary Construction  Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2002  (division  B  of  Public 
Law  107-107;  Stat.  1280),  $48,000,000. 

SEC.    2105.    MODIFICATION    OF   AUTHORITY   TO    CARRY    OUT    CERTAIN    FISCAL   YEAR    2002 
PROJECTS. 

(a)  Modification. — The  table  in  section  2101(a)  of  the  Military  Construction 
Authorization  Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2002  (division  B  of  Public  Law  107-107;  115  Stat. 
1281),  is  amended  in  the  item  relating  to  Fort  Richardson,  Alaska,  by  striking 
"$115,000,000"  in  the  amount  column  and  inserting  "$117,000,000". 

(b)  Conforming  Amendment. — Paragraph  (2)  of  section  2104(b)  of  such  Act 
(115  Stat.  1284)  is  amended  by  striking  "$52,000,000"  and  inserting  "$54,000,000". 

TITLE  XXII— NAVY 

SEC.  2201.  AUTHORIZED  NAVY  CONSTRUCTION  AND  LAND  ACQUISITION  PROJECTS. 

(a)  Inside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2204(a)(1),  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may 
acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  installa- 
tions or  locations  inside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amounts,  set  forth  in  the  fol- 
lowing table: 


LXVII 


Navy:  inside  the  United  States 


state 


Installation  or  location 


Amount 


Arizona  .... 
California 


District  of  Columbia 
Florida 


Georgia 

Hawaii  

niinois  

Maryland  

Mississippi  

New  Jersey  

North  Carolina 

Rhode  Island  .. 
Virginia  


Marine  Corps  Air  Station,  Yuma  .. 

Marine  Corps  Base,  Camp  Pendle- 
ton. 

Naval  Air  Station,  Lemoore  

Marine  Corps  Air  Station, 
Miramar. 

Naval  Air  Station,  North  Island  ... 

Naval  Air  Warfare  Center,  China 
Lake  

Naval  Air  Warfare  Center,  Point 
Mugu,  San  Nicholas  Island 

Naval  Air  Facility,  San  Clemente 
Island  

Naval  Postgraduate  School,  Mon- 
terey. 

Naval  Station,  San  Diego  

Marine  Air  Ground  Task  Force 
Training  Center,  Twentynine 
Palms  

Marine  Corps  Barracks 

Naval  Air  Station,  Jacksonville  .... 

Naval  Air  Station,  Whiting  Field, 
Milton  

Naval  Surface  Warfare  Center, 
Coastal  Systems  Station,  Pan- 
ama City  

Blount  Island  (Jacksonville)  

Strategic  Weapons  Facility  Atlan- 
tic, Kings  Bay 

Fleet  and  Industrial  Supply  Cen- 
ter, Pearl  Harbor  

Naval  Magazine,  Lualualei  

Naval  Shipyard,  Pearl  Harbor  

Naval  Training  Center,  Great 
Lakes. 

Naval  Air  Warfare  Center,  Patux- 
ent  River  

Naval  Surface  Warfare  Center,  In- 
dian Head  

Naval  Air  Station,  Meridian 

Naval  Air  Warfare  Center, 
Lakehurst. 

Naval  Weapons  Station,  Earle  

Marine  Corps  Air  Station,  New 
River  

Marine  Corps  Base,  Camp 
Lejeune. 

Naval  Station,  Newport  

Naval  Undersea  Warfare  Center, 
Newport  

Henderson  Hall,  Arlington  

Marine  Corps  Combat  Develop- 
ment Command,  Quantico  

Naval  Amphibious  Base,  Little 
Creek. 

Naval  Station,  Norfolk  


$22,230,000 
$73,580,000 

$34,510,000 
$4,740,000 

$49,240,000 

$12,890,000 

$6,150,000 

$18,940,000 
$35,550,000 

$49,710,000 


$28,390,000 
$1,550,000 
$3,190,000 

$4,830,000 


$9,550,000 
$115,711,000 

$11,510,000 

$32,180,000 

$6,320,000 

$7,010,000 

$137,120,000 


$24,370,000 

$14,850,000 

$4,570,000 

$20,681,000 

$123,720,000 

$6,240,000 
$29,450,000 

$16,140,000 

$10,890,000 
$1,970,000 

$3,700,000 
$3,810,000 

$182,240,000 


LXVIII 


Navy:  Inside  the  United  States— Continued 


state 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Washington  

Various  Locations  .... 

Naval  Space  Command  Center, 
Dahlgren  

Norfolk  Naval  Shipyard,  Ports- 
mouth. 

Naval  Magazine,  Indian  Island 

Naval  Submarine  Base,  Bangor  .... 

Strategic  Weapons  Facility  Pacific, 
Bangor  

Various  Locations,  CONUS  

Total  

$20,520,000 
$17,770,000 

$2,240,000 
$33,820,000 

$6,530,000 
$56,360,000 

$1,244,772,000 

(b)  Outside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2204(a)(2),  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may 
acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  installa- 
tions or  locations  outside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amounts,  set  forth  in  the 
following  table: 

Navy:  Outside  the  United  States 


Covintry 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Bahrain  

Italy  

United  Kingdom  

Naval  Support  Activity,  Bahrain  ... 
Naval       Support       Activity,       La 

Maddalena 

Naval  Air  Station,  Sigonella  

$18,030,000 

$39,020,000 
$34,070,000 

$7,070,000 

Joint       Maritime       Facility,       St. 
Mawgan  

Total  

$98,190,000 

SEC.  2202.  FAMILY  HOUSING. 

(a)  Construction  and  Acquisition. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to 
the  authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2204(a)(6)(A),  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  may  construct  or  acquire  family  housing  units  (including  land  acquisition  and 
supporting  facilities)  at  the  installations  or  locations,  for  the  purposes  and  in  the 
amounts,  set  forth  in  the  following  table: 

Navy:  Family  Housing 


state  or  Country 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Purpose 

Amount 

California 

Florida  

North  Carolina  

Naval  Air  Station, 

Lemoore  

Naval  Air  Station,  Pensa- 
cola 

Marine  Corps  Base, 
Camp  Lejeune  

Marine  Corps  Air  Sta- 
tion, Cherry  Point 

187  Units  .... 

25  Units   

519  Units   .... 

339  Units  .... 

Total  

$41,585,000 
$4,447,000 

$68,531,000 
42,803,000 

$157,366,000 

(b)  Planning  and  Design. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the  au- 
thorization of  appropriation  in  section  2204(a)(5)(A),  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may 
carry  out  architectural  and  engineering  services  and  construction  design  activities 


LXIX 

with  respect  to  the  construction  or  improvement  of  military  family  housing  units  in 
an  amount  not  to  exceed  $8,381,000. 

SEC.  2203.  IMPROVEMENTS  TO  MILITARY  FAMILY  HOUSING  UNITS. 

Subject  to  section  2825  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  and  using  amounts  ap- 
propriated pursuant  to  the  authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2204(a)(5)(A), 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may  improve  existing  military  family  housing  units  in  an 
amount  not  to  exceed  $20,446,000. 

SEC.  2204.  AUTHORIZATION  OF  APPROPRIATIONS,  NAVY. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  years  beginning  after 
September  30,  2003,  for  mihtary  construction,  land  acquisition  and  military  family 
housing  functions  of  the  Department  of  the  Navy  in  the  total  amount  of 
$2,169,829,000  as  follows: 

(1)  For  military  construction  projects  inside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2201(a),  $909,992,000. 

(2)  For  military  construction  projects  outside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2201(b),  $98,190,000. 

(3)  For  unspecified  minor  construction  projects  authorized  by  section  2805 
of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $12,334,000. 

(4)  For  architectural  and  engineering  services  and  construction  design 
under  section  2807  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $65,612,000. 

(5)  For  military  family  housing  functions: 

(A)  For  construction  and  acquisition,  planning  and  design  and  improve- 
ment of  mihtary  family  housing  and  facilities,  $184,193,000. 

(B)  For  support  of  military  family  housing  (including  functions  de- 
scribed in  section  2833  of  title  10,  United  States  Code),  $852,778,000. 

(6)  For  construction  of  a  shipboard  ashore  BEQ  at  Naval  Shipyard  Norfolk, 
Virginia,  authorized  in  section  2201(a)  of  the  Mihtary  Construction  Authoriza- 
tion Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2003  (division  B  of  Public  Law  107-314;  116  Stat. 
2687),  $46,730,000. 

TITLE  XXIII— AIR  FORCE 


SEC.  2301.  AUTHORIZED  AIR  FORCE  CONSTRUCTION  AND  LAND  ACQUISITION  PROJECTS. 

(a)  Inside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2304(a)(1),  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
may  acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  instal- 
lations or  locations  inside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amounts,  set  forth  in  the 
following  table: 

Air  Force:  Inside  the  United  States 


state 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Alabama  

Alaska  

Arizona  

Arkansas  

California  

Colorado  

District  of  Columbia  

Florida  

Georgia  

Hawaii  

Idaho  

Illinois 

New  Jersey 

Maxwell  Air  Force  Base  

$13,400,000 

$33,261,000 

$2,000,000 

$10,062,000 

$3,695,000 

$22,750,000 

$19,444,000 

$7,019,000 

$9,300,000 

$7,800,000 

$6,320,000 

$29,264,000 

$73,296,000 

$5,445,000 

$1,900,000 

$11,861,000 

$3,600,000 

$7,097,000 

$24,499,000 

Eielson  Air  Force  Base  

Elmendorf  Air  Force  Base  

Davis-Monthan  Air  Force  Base 

Little  Rock  Air  Force  Base  

Beale  Air  Force  Base  

Edwards  Air  Force  Base 

Buckley  Air  Force  Base  

Boiling  Air  Force  Base  

Hurlburt  Field  

Tyndall  Air  Force  Base 

Robins  Air  Force  Base  

Hickam  Air  Force  Base  

Mountain     Home     Air     Force 

Base. 
Scott  Air  Force  Base  

McGuire  Air  Force  Base  

New  Mexico  

Tularosa  

Kirtland  Air  Force  Base  

North  Carolina 

Pope  Air  Force  Base  

LXX 


Air  Force:  Inside  the  United  States — Continued 


State 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

North  Dakota  

Seymour    Johnson    Air    Force 

Base. 
Minot  Air  Force  Base   

$11,222,000 

$3,190,000 
$10,500,000 

$1,167,000 
$19,444,000 

$9,042,000 
$20,335,000 
$57,360,000 
$29,167,000 
$15,848,000 
$25,474,000 

Ohio  

Oklahoma  

South  Carohna 

Wright-Patterson      Air      Force 

Base. 
Altus  Air  Force  Base  

Tinker  Air  Force  Base  

Charleston  Air  Force  Base  

Goodfellow  Air  Force  Base  

Lackland  Air  Force  Base  

Texas  

Utah 

Virginia   

Sheppard  Air  Force  Base  

Hill  Air  Force  Base  

Langley  Air  Force  Base  

Total  

$494,762,000 

(b)  Outside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2304(a)(2),  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
may  acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  instal- 
lations or  locations  outside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amounts,  set  forth  in  the 
following  table: 

Air  Force:  Outside  the  United  States 


Country 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Germany 

Italy  

Korea  

Portugal  

Turkey  

United  Kingdom  

Wake  Island                 

Ramstein  Air  Base  

Spangdahlem  Air  Base  

Aviano  Air  Base  

Kunsan  Air  Base  

Osan  Air  Base  

Lajes  Field,  Azores 

Incirlik  Air  Base  

Royal  Air  Force,  Lakenheath  ... 

Royal  Air  Force,  Mildenhall  

Wake  Island  

$35,616,000 

$25,328,000 

$14,025,000 

$7,059,000 

$16,638,000 

$4,086,000 

$3,262,000 

$30,587,000 

$10,558,000 

$24,000,000 

Total  

$171,159,000 

(c)  Unspecified  Worldwide. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the  au- 
thorization of  appropriations  in  section  2304(a)(3),  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
may  acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  instal- 
lation or  location,  and  in  the  amount,  set  forth  in  the  following  table: 


Air  Force:  Unspecified  Worldwide 


Location 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Unspecified  Worldwide  .. 

Classified  Location 

$29,501,000 

Total  

$29,501,000 

SEC.  2302.  FAMILY  HOUSING. 

(a)  Construction  and  Acquisition. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to 
the  authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2304(a)(6)(A),  the  Secretary  of  the  Air 
Force  may  construct  or  acquire  family  housing  units  (including  land  acquisition  and 
supporting  facilities)  at  the  installations  or  locations,  for  the  purposes  and  in  the 
amounts,  set  forth  in  the  following  table: 


LXXI 


Air  Force:  Family  Housing 


State  or  Country 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Purpose 

Amount 

Arizona  

California  

Delaware  

Florida  

Idaho  

Maryland  

Missouri  

Montana  

North  Carolina  

North  Dakota  

Davis-Monthan  Air  Force 
Base  

Travis  Air  Force  Base  

Dover  Air  Force  Base 

Eglin  Air  Force  Base 

Mountain  Home  Air 
Force  Base  

93  Units  

56  Units  

112  Units  .... 
279  Units   .... 

186  Units  .... 
50  Units   

100  Units   .... 

94  Units  

138  Units   .... 

144  Units  .... 
200  Units   .... 

75  Units  

116  Units   .... 

96  Units  

Ill  Units  .... 

42  Units   

100  Units   .... 

89  Units  

Total  

$19,357,000 
$12,723,000 
$19,601,000 
$32,166,000 

$37,126,000 
$20,233,000 

$18,221,000 

$19,368,000 

$18,336,000 

$29,550,000 
$41,117,000 
$16,240,000 
$19,973,000 
$13,754,000 
$44,765,000 
$13,428,000 
$17,538,000 

$23,640,000 

Andrews  Air  Force  Base 
Whiteman  Air  Force 

Base  

Malmstrom  Air  Force 

Base  

Seymour  Johnson  Air 

Force  Base 

Grand  Forks  Air  Force 

Base  

Minot  Air  Force  Base 

Ellsworth  Air  Force  Base 

Dyess  Air  Force  Base 

Randolph  Air  Force  Base 
Osan  Air  Base  

South  Dakota  

Texas  

Korea  

Portugal  

Turkey  

United  Kingdom  

Lajes  Field,  Azores  

Incirhk  Air  Base 

Royal  Air  Force, 
Lakenheath  

$417,136,000 

(b)  Planning  and  Design. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the  au- 
thorization of  appropriations  in  section  2304(a)(6)(A),  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
may  carry  out  architectural  and  engineering  services  and  construction  design  activi- 
ties with  respect  to  the  construction  or  improvement  of  military  family  housing 
units  in  an  amount  not  to  exceed  $33,488,000. 

SEC.  2303.  IMPROVEMENTS  TO  MILITARY  FAJVOLY  HOUSING  UNITS. 

Subject  to  section  2825  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  and  using  amounts  ap- 
propriated pursuant  to  the  authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2304(a)(6)(A), 
the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  may  improve  existing  military  family  housing  units 
in  an  amount  not  to  exceed  $248,998,000. 

SEC.  2304.  AUTHORIZATION  OF  APPROPRIATIONS,  AIR  FORCE. 

(a)  In  General. — Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal 
years  beginning  after  September  30,  2003,  for  military  construction,  land  acquisition 
and  military  family  housing  functions  of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force  in  the 
total  amount  of  $2,302,857,000  as  follows: 

(1)  For  military  construction  projects  inside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2301(a),  $486,282,000. 

(2)  For  military  construction  projects  outside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2301(b),  $171,159,000. 

(3)  For  the  military  construction  projects  at  unspecified  worldwide  locations 
authorized  by  section  2301(c),  $28,981,000. 

(4)  For  unspecified  minor  construction  projects  authorized  by  section  2805 
of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $12,000,000. 

(5)  For   architectural   and   engineering   services    and   construction   design 
under  section  2807  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $74,345,000. 

(6)  For  military  housing  functions: 

(A)  For  construction   and   acquisition,   planning  and  design,   and  im- 
provement of  military  family  housing  and  facilities,  $695,622,000. 

(B)  For  support  of  military  family  housing  (including  functions   de- 
scribed in  section  2833  of  title  10,  United  States  Code),  $834,468,000. 


LXXII 

TITLE  XXIV— DEFENSE  AGENCIES 


SEC. 


2401.    AUTHORIZED 
PROJECTS. 


DEFENSE    AGENCIES    CONSTRUCTION    AND    LAND    ACQUISITION 


(a)  Inside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2405(a)(1),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may 
acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  mihtary  construction  projects  for  the  installa- 
tions and  locations  inside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amounts,  set  forth  in  the 
following  table: 

Defense  Agencies:  inside  the  United  States 


Agency 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Defense  Education  Activ- 

Marine    Corps     Base,     Camp 

ity. 

Lejeune,  North  Carolina  

$15,259,000 

Defense  Logistics  Agency 

Defense     Distribution     Depot, 
New    Cumberland,    Pennsyl- 

vania   

$27,700,000 

Eglin  Air  Force  Base,  Florida  .. 

$4,800,000 

Eielson  Air  Force  Base,  Alaska 

$17,000,000 

Hickam   Air   Force    Base,    Ha- 

waii   

$14,100,000 

Hurlburt  Field,  Florida  

$4,100,000 

Langley  Air  Force   Base,   Vir- 

ginia   

$13,000,000 

Laughlin      Air      Force      Base, 

Texas  

$4,688,000 

McChord      Air      Force      Base, 

Washington  

$8,100,000 

Nellis  Air  Force  Base,  Nevada 

$12,800,000 

Offutt    Air    Force    Base,    Ne- 

braska   

$13,400,000 

National  Security  Agen- 

Fort Meade,  Maryland 

$1,842,000 

cy- 
Special  Operations  Com- 

mand   

Dam  Neck,  Virginia  

$15,281,000 

Fort  Benning,  Georgia  

$2,100,000 

Fort  Bragg,  North  Carolina  

$36,300,000 

Fort  Campbell,  Kentucky  

$7,800,000 

Harrisburg    International    Air- 

port, Pennsylvania  

$3,000,000 

Hurlburt  Field,  Florida  

$6,000,000 

Tri-Care  Management 

Activity  

Naval  Station,  Anacostia,  Dis- 

trict of  Columbia  

$15,714,000 

Naval    Submarine    Base,    New 

London,  Connecticut  

$6,700,000 

United  States  Air  Force  Acad- 

emy, Colorado  

$22,100,000 

Walter   Reed    Medical    Center, 

District  of  Columbia  

$9,000,000 

Washington  Head- 

quarters Services  

Arlington,  Virginia 

Total  

$38,086,000 

$298,870,000 

(b)  Outside  the  United  States. — Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the 
authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2405(a)(2),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may 
acquire  real  property  and  carry  out  military  construction  projects  for  the  installa- 


LXXIII 


tions  and  locations  outside  the  United  States,  and  in  the  amounts,  set  forth  in  the 
following  table: 

Defense  Agencies:  Outside  the  United  States 


Agency 

Installation  or  location 

Amount 

Defense  Education  Agen- 
cy   

Grafenwoehr,  Germany  

Heidelberg,  Germany 

Sigonella,  Italy  

Vicenza,  Italy  

Vilseck,  Germany  

Stuttgart  Germany  

$36,247,000 

$3,086,000 

$30,234,000 

$16,374,000 

$1,773,000 

$11,400,000 

$26,000,000 
$12,585,000 

Special  Operations  Com- 
mand   

Tri-Care  Management 
Activity  

Andersen     Air     Force     Base, 

Guam  

Grafenwoehr,  Germany  

Total  

$137,699,000 

SEC.  2402.  FAMILY  HOUSING. 

Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the  authorization  of  appropriations  in 
section  2405(a)(8)(A),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may  carry  out  architectural  and  engi- 
neering services  and  construction  design  activities  with  respect  to  the  construction 
or  improvement  of  military  family  housing  units  in  an  amount  not  to  exceed 
$300,000. 

SEC.  2403.  IMPROVEMENTS  TO  MILITARY  FAMILY  HOUSING  UNITS. 

Subject  to  section  2825  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  and  using  amounts  ap- 
propriated pursuEint  to  the  authorization  of  appropriations  in  section  2404(a)(5)(A), 
the  Secretary  of  Defense  may  improve  existing  military  family  housing  units  in  an 
amount  not  to  exceed  $50,000. 

SEC.  2404.  ENERGY  CONSERVATION  PROJECTS. 

Using  amounts  appropriated  pursuant  to  the  authorization  of  appropriations  in 
section  2405(a)(6),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  may  carry  out  energy  conservation 
projects  under  section  2865  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  in  the  amount  of 
$69,500,000. 

SEC.  2405.  AUTHORIZATION  OF  APPROPRIATIONS,  DEFENSE  AGENCIES. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  years  beginning  after 
September  30,  2003,  for  military  construction,  land  acquisition,  and  military  family 
housing  functions  of  the  Department  of  Defense  (other  than  the  military  depart- 
ments) in  the  total  amount  of  $1,017,718,000,  as  follows: 

(1)  For  military  construction  projects  inside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2401(a),  $296,670,000. 

(2)  For  military  construction  projects  outside  the  United  States  authorized 
by  section  2401(b),  $120,334,000. 

(3)  For  unspecified  minor  construction  projects  under  section  2805  of  title 
10,  United  States  Code,  $16,153,000. 

(4)  For  contingency  construction  projects  of  the  Secretary  of  Defense  under 
section  2804  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $8,960,000. 

(5)  For  architectural  and  engineering  services  and  construction  design 
under  section  2807  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  $59,884,000. 

(6)  For  Energy  Conservation  projects  authorized  by  section  2404  of  this  Act, 
$69,500,000. 

(7)  For  base  closure  and  realignment  activities  as  authorized  by  the  Defense 
Base  Closure  and  Realignment  Act  of  1990  (part  A  of  title  XXIX  of  Public  Law 
101-510;  10  U.S.C.  2687  note),  $370,427,000. 

(8)  For  military  family  housing  functions: 

(A)  For  planning  and  design  and  improvement  of  military  family  hous- 
ing and  facilities,  $350,000. 


LXXIV 

(B)  For  support  of  military  family  housing  (including  functions  de- 
scribed in  section  2833  of  title  10,  United  States  Code),  $49,440,000. 

(C)  For  credit  to  the  Department  of  Defense  Family  Housing  Improve- 
ment Fund  established  by  section  2883{aXl)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code, 
$300,000. 

(9)  For  construction  of  the  Defense  Threat  Reduction  Center  at  Fort  Belvoir, 
Virginia,  authorized  by  section  2401(a)  of  the  Military  Construction  Authoriza- 
tion Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2003  (division  B  of  Public  Law  107-314;  116  Stat. 
2695),  $25,700,000. 

TITLE  XXV— NORTH  ATLANTIC  TREATY  ORGANIZATION 
SECURITY  INVESTMENT  PROGRAM 

SEC.  2501.  AUTHORIZED  NATO  CONSTRUCTION  AIVD  LAND  ACQUISITION  PROJECTS. 

The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  make  contributions  for  the  North  Atlantic  Treaty 
Organization  Security  Investment  Program  as  provided  in  section  2806  of  title  1(), 
United  States  Code,  in  an  amount  not  to  exceed  the  sum  of  the  amount  authorized 
to  be  appropriated  for  this  purpose  in  section  2502  and  the  amount  collected  from 
the  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization  as  a  result  of  construction  previously  fi- 
nanced by  the  United  States. 

SEC.  2502.  AUTHORIZATION  OF  APPROPRIATIONS,  NATO. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  years  beginning  after 
September  30,  2003,  for  contributions  by  the  Secretary  of  Defense  under  section 
2806  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  for  the  share  of  the  United  States  of  the  cost 
of  projects  for  the  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization  Security  Investment  Program 
authorized  by  section  2501,  in  the  amount  of  $169,300,000. 

TITLE  XXVI— GUARD  AND  RESERVE  FORCES  FACILITIES 

SEC.   2601.   AUTHORIZED   GUARD   AND   RESERVE   CONSTRUCTION  AND   LAND   ACQUISITION 
PROJECTS. 

Funds  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  fiscal  years  beginning  after 
September  30,  2003,  for  the  costs  of  acquisition,  architectural  and  engineering  serv- 
ices, and  construction  of  facilities  for  the  Guard  and  Reserve  Forces,  and  for  con- 
tributions therefor,  under  chapter  1803  of  title  10,  United  States  Code  (including  the 
cost  of  acquisition  of  land  for  those  facilities),  the  following  amounts: 

(1)  For  the  Department  of  the  Army — 

(A)  for  the  Army  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  $168,298,000; 
and 

(B)  for  the  Army  Reserve,  $68,478,000. 

(2)  For  the  Department  of  the  Navy,  for  the  Naval  and  Marine  Corps  Re- 
serve, $28,032,000. 

(3)  For  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force — 

(A)  for  the  Air  National  Guard  of  the  United  States,  $60,430,000;  and 

(B)  for  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  $44,312,000. 

TITLE  XXVII— EXPIRATION  AND  EXTENSION  OF 
AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC.  2701.  EXPIRATION  OF  AUTHORIZATIONS  AND  AMOUNTS  REQUIRED  TO  BE  SPECIFIED  BY 
LAW. 

(a)  Expiration  of  Authorizations  After  Three  Years. — Except  as  provided 
in  subsection  (b),  all  authorizations  contained  in  titles  XXI  through  XXVI  for  mili- 
tary construction  projects,  land  acquisition,  family  housing  projects  and  facilities, 
and  contributions  to  the  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization  Security  Investment 
Program  (and  authorizations  of  appropriations  therefor)  shall  expire  on  the  later 
of— 

(1)  October  1,  2006;  or 

(2)  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  an  Act  authorizing  funds  for  military  con- 
struction for  fiscal  year  2007. 

(b)  Exception. — Subsection  (a)  shall  not  apply  to  authorizations  for  military 
construction  projects,  land  acquisition,  family  housing  projects,  and  facilities,  and 
contributions  to  the  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization  Security  Investment  Pro- 


LXXV 

gram  (and  authorizations  of  appropriations  therefor)  for  which  appropriated  funds 
have  been  obligated  before  the  later  of — 

(1)  October  1,  2006;  or 

(2)  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  an  Act  authorizing  funds  for  fiscal  year 
2007  for  military  construction  projects,  land  acquisition,  family  housing  projects 
and  facilities,  and  contributions  to  the  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization  Secu- 
rity Investment  Program. 

SEC.  2702.  EXTENSION  OF  AUTHORIZATIONS  OF  CERTAIN  FISCAL  YEAR  2001  PROJECTS. 

(a)  Extension. — Notwithstanding  section  2701  of  the  Military  Construction  Au- 
thorization Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2001  (division  B  of  Public  Law  106-398;  114  Stat. 
1654A-389),  authorizations  set  forth  in  the  tables  in  subsection  (b),  as  provided  in 
sections  2102,  2201,  and  2404  of  that  Act,  shall  remain  in  effect  until  October  1, 
2004,  or  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  an  Act  authorizing  funds  for  military  construc- 
tion for  fiscal  year  2005,  whichever  is  later. 

(b)  Tables. — The  tables  referred  to  in  subsection  (a)  are  as  follows: 


Army:  Extension  of  2001  Project  Authorization 


state 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Project 

Amount 

South  Carolina  

Fort  Jackson  

New  Construc- 
tion—GFOQ 

$250,000 

Navy:  Extension  of  2001  Project  Authorization 


state 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Project 

Amount 

Pennsylvania  

Naval  Surface  War- 
fare Center  Ship- 
yard Systems  Engi- 
neering Station, 
Philadelphia  

Gas  Turbine 
Test  Facility 

$10,680,000 

Defense  Agencies:  Extension  of  2001  Project  Authorizations 

state 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Project 

Amount 

Defense  Education  Ac- 
tivity   

Seoul,  Korea  

Taegu,  Korea  

Elementary 
School  Full 
Day  Kinder- 
garten Class- 
room Addi- 
tion   

Elementary/ 
High  School 
Full  Day  Kin- 
dergarten 
Classroom 
Addition 

$2,317,000 
$762,000 

SEC.  2703.  EXTENSION  OF  AUTHORIZATIONS  OF  CERTAIN  FISCAL  YEAR  2000  PROJECTS. 

(a)  Extension. — Notwithstanding  section  2701  of  the  Military  Construction  Au- 
thorization Act  for  Fiscal  Year  2000  (division  B  of  Public  Law  106-65;  113  Stat. 
841),  authorizations  set  forth  in  the  tables  in  subsection  (b),  as  provided  in  section 
2601  of  that  Act,  shall  remain  in  effect  until  October  1,  2004,  or  the  date  of  the  en- 


LXXVI 

actment  of  an  Act  authorizing  funds  for  military  construction  for  fiscal  year  2005, 
whichever  is  later. 

(b)  Table. — The  tables  referred  to  in  subsection  (a)  are  as  follows: 


Air  Force:  Extension  of  2000  Project  Authorization 


State 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Project 

Amount 

Oklahoma 

Tinker  Air  Force 
Base  

Replace  Family 
Housing  (41 
Units)  

$6,000,000 

Army:  Extension  of  2000  Project  Authorization 


state 

Installation  or  loca- 
tion 

Project 

Amount 

Virginia  

National  Guard  Ft. 
Pickett  

Multi-purpose 
Range-Heavy 

$13,500,000 

SEC.  2704.  EFFECTIVE  DATE. 

Titles  XXI,  XXII,  XXIII,  XXIV,  XXV,  XXVI,  and  XXVII  shall  take  effect  on  the 
later  of — 

(1)  October  1,  2003;  or 

(2)  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act. 

TITLE  XXVIII— GENERAL  PROVISIONS 

Subtitle  A — Military  Construction  and  Military  Family 

Housing 


SEC.   2801.   STREAMLINING  MILITARY  CONSTRUCTION  TO   REDUCE   FACILITY  ACQUISITION 
AND  CONSTRUCTION  CYCLE  TIME. 

(a)  Thresholds.— (1)  Section  2803(c)(1)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is 
amended  by  striking  "$30,000,000"  and  inserting  "$60,000,000". 

(2)  Section  2805  of  such  title  is  amended — 

(A)  in  subsection  (a)(1) — 

(i)  by  striking  "$1,500,000"  and  inserting  "$3,000,000";  and 
(ii)  by  striking  "$3,000,000"  and  inserting  "$6,000,000". 

(B)  in  subsection  (b)(1)  by  striking  "$750,000"  and  inserting  "$1,500,000"; 
and 

(C)  in  subsection  (c)(1) — 

(i)  by  striking  "$1,500,000"  in  subparagraph  (A)  and  inserting 
"$3,000,000";  and 

(ii)  by  striking  "$750,000"  in  subparagraph  (B)  and  inserting 
"$1,500,000". 

(3)  Section  2811(b)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "$5,000,000"  and  insert- 
ing "$10,000,000". 

(4)  Section  18233a  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "$1,500,000  in  subsection 
(a)(1)  and  inserting  "$3,000,000". 

(b)  Project  Applicability.— Section  2805(b)(1)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  in- 
serting at  the  end  "This  paragraph  shall  not  apply  to  unspecified  minor  military 
construction  projects  using  funds  made  available  for  operation  and  maintenance  in 
accordance  with  subsection  (c)." 

(c)  Design-Build  Contracting.— (1)  Section  2305a(c)(5)  of  such  title  is 
amended — 

(A)  by  inserting  "(A)"  after  "(5)";  and 

(B)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  subparagraph: 

"(B)  Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law,  a  military  department  may  ac- 
celerate design  effort  for  design-build  contracts  (fast- track  design  funding)  to  accom- 


LXXVII 

plish  the  design  effort  for  any  military  construction  or  family  housing  construction 
project,  prior  to  the  project  being  authorized  and  appropriated,  if  (1)  the  contractor 
to  whom  the  contract  will  be  awarded  has  been  selected  using  design-build  selection 
procedures  established  under  this  section,  (2)  a  request  for  the  authorization  and 
appropriation  of  construction  funds  has  been  submitted  to  Congress  as  part  of  the 
Department's  annual  budget,  and  (3)  the  Government's  liability  in  a  Termination  for 
Convenience  would  not  exceed  costs  above  that  attributable  to  the  final  design  of 
the  project.". 

(2)  Section  2807(a)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "in  connection  with  mili- 
tary construction  projects  not  otherwise  authorized  by  law"  at  the  end  of  the  first 
sentence  and  inserting  "regardless  of  the  intended  acquisition  approach,  in  connec- 
tion with  a  military  construction  project  otherwise,  or  not  otherwise,  authorized  by 
law". 

(d)  Cost  Variations. — Section  2853(a)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  "or 
200  percent  of  the  minor  construction  project  ceiling  specified  in  section  2805(a)(1), 
whichever  is  less". 

(e)  Real  Property  Transactions. — (1)  Section  2662  is  repealed. 

(2)  Section  2672  of  such  title  is  amended — 

(A)  in  the  title,  by  striking  "$500,000"  and  inserting  "the  unspecified  minor 
military  construction  project  ceiling  in  section  2805(a)(1)  of  this  title";  and 

(B)  in  subsection  (a)(1)(B),  by  striking  "$500,000"  and  inserting  "the  unspec- 
ified minor  military  construction  project  ceiling  in  section  2805(a)(1)  of  this 
title";  and 

(C)  in  subsection  (a)(2),  by  striking  "$500,000"  and  inserting  "the  unspec- 
ified minor  military  construction  project  ceiling  in  section  2805(a)(1)  of  this 
title". 

(3)  Section  2672a(b)  of  such  title  is  amended  by  striking  the  last  sentence. 

SEC.  2802.  INCREASED  TERMS  FOR  LEASES  OF  FAMILY  HOUSING  AND  OTHER  FACILITIES  IN 
FOREIGN  COUNTRIES. 

(a)  Leases  of  Family  Housing  in  Foreign  Countries.— Section  2828(d)(1)  of 
title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "ten  years"  and  inserting  "fif- 
teen years". 

(b)  Leases  of  Other  Facilities  in  Foreign  Countries. — Section  2675  of  such 
title  is  amended  by  striking  "five  years"  and  inserting  "fifteen  years". 

Subtitle  B — Real  Property  and  Facilities  Administration 

sec.  2811.  EXPANDED  AUTHORITY  TO  TRANSFER  PROPERTY  AT  MILITARY  INSTALLATIONS  TO 
BE  CLOSED  TO  PERSONS  WHO  CONSTRUCT  OR  PROVIDE  MILITARY  HOUSING. 

(a)  1988  Law. — Section  204(e)  of  the  Defense  Authorization  Amendments  and 
Base  Closure  and  Realignment  Act  (Public  Law  100-526;  10  U.S.C.  2687  note)  is 
amended  by  striking  "Family"  in  the  subsection  heading. 

(b)  1990  Law. — Section  2905(f)  of  the  Defense  Base  Closure  and  Realignment 
Act  of  1990  (part  A  of  title  XXDC  of  Public  Law  101-510;  10  U.S.C.  2687  note)  is 
amended  by  striking  "Family"  in  the  subsection  heading. 

SEC.  2812.  ACCEPTANCE  OF  IN-KIND  CONSIDERATION  FOR  EASEMENTS. 

(a)  EASEMENTS  FOR  Rights-of-Way. — Section  2668  of  title  10,  United  States 
Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  subsections: 

"(f)  In  addition  to  any  cash  consideration  accepted  under  subsection  (e),  the  Sec- 
retary concerned  may  accept  in-kind  consideration  with  respect  to  easements  grant- 
ed under  this  section,  including  the  following: 

"(1)  Maintenance,  protection,  alteration,  repair,  improvement,  or  restoration 
(including  environmental  restoration)  of  property  or  facilities  under  the  control 
of  the  Secretary  concerned. 

"(2)  Construction  of  new  facilities. 

"(3)  Provision  of  facilities  for  use  by  the  military  departments. 
"(4)  Facilities  operation  support. 

"(5)  Provision  of  such  other  services  relating  to  activities  that  will  occur  on 
the  property  subject  to  the  easement,  as  the  Secretary  concerned  considers  ap- 
propriate. 

"(g)  The  Secretary  concerned  may  accept  in-kind  consideration  under  subsection 
if)  at  any  property  or  facilities  under  his  or  her  control  that  he  or  she  selects  for 
that  purpose. 

"(h)  Sections  2662  and  2802  of  this  title  shall  not  apply  to  construction  of  any 
new  facilities  accepted  as  in-kind  consideration  under  this  subsection.". 


LXXVIII 

(b)  Easements  for  Rights-of-Way:  Gas,  Water,  and  Sewer  Pipelines.— Sec- 
tion 2669  of  such  title  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sub- 
sections: 

"(f)  In  addition  to  any  cash  consideration  accepted  under  subsection  (e),  the  Sec- 
retary concerned  may  accept  in-kind  consideration  with  respect  to  easements  grant- 
ed under  this  section,  including  the  following: 

"(1)  Maintenance,  protection,  alteration,  repair,  improvement,  or  restoration 
(including  environmental  restoration)  of  property  or  facilities  under  the  control 
of  the  Secretary  concerned. 

"(2)  Construction  of  new  facilities. 

"(3)  Provision  of  facilities  for  use  by  the  military  departments. 
"(4)  Facilities  operation  support. 

"(5)  Provision  of  such  other  services  relating  to  activities  that  will  occur  on 
the  property  subject  to  the  easement,  as  the  Secretary  concerned  considers  ap- 
propriate. 

"(g)  The  Secretary  concerned  may  accept  in-kind  consideration  under  subsection 
(f)  any  property  or  facilities  under  his  or  her  control  that  he  or  she  selects  for  that 
purpose. 

"(h)  Sections  2662  and  2802  of  this  title  shall  not  apply  to  construction  of  any 
new  facilities  accepted  as  in-kind  consideration  under  this  subsection.". 

SEC.  2813.  MODIFICATION  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  ACCEPT  FUNDS  TO  COVER  ADMINISTRATIVE  EX- 
PENSES RELATING  TO  CERTAIN  REAL  PROPERTY  TRANSACTIONS. 

Section  2695  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended — 

(1)  by  amending  subsection  (a)  to  read  as  follows: 

"(a)  Authority  To  Accept. — In  connection  with  a  real  property  transaction  re- 
ferred to  in  subsection  (b)  with  a  non-Federal  person  or  entity,  the  Secretary  of  a 
military  department  may  charge  the  person  or  entity,  either  in  advance  or  arrears, 
amounts  to  cover  administrative  expenses  incurred  by  the  Secretary  in  reviewing 
and  implementing  the  covered  transaction."; 

(2)  in  subsection  (b),  by  inserting  "whether  or  not  the  transaction  is  com- 
pleted" before  the  colon;  and 

(3)  in  subsection  (c) — 

(A)  by  inserting  "or  are  to  be"  after  "expenses  were";  and 

(B)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sentence:  "After  liquidation 
of  all  subsection  (a)  administrative  expenses,  the  amount  of  any  overpay- 
ment shall  be  refunded  to  the  non-Federal  person  or  entity  from  the  appro- 
priation, fund,  or  account  into  which  the  funds  were  originally  deposited  in 
such  a  way  as  to  merge  with  and  become  available  for  the  same  purposes 
and  period  as  the  accounts  to  which  they  are  credited.". 

SEC.  2814.  AUTHORITY  TO  CONVEY  PROPERTY  AT  MILITARY  INSTALLATIONS  TO  PERSONS 
WHO  CONSTRUCT  OR  PROVIDE  MILITARY  HOUSING. 

(a)  Authority  To  Con\'ey  Property. — Subchapter  III  of  chapter  169  of  title  10, 
United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§  2869.  Conveyance  of  property  to  persons  who  construct  or  provide  mili- 
tary housing 

"(a)  Authority  To  Convey  Property. — Subject  to  subsection  (b),  the  Secretary 
concerned  may  enter  into  an  agreement  to  convey  real  property,  including  any  im- 
provements, structures  or  fixtures  located  thereon,  on  a  military  installation  to  any 
person  who  agrees,  in  exchange  for  the  real  property,  to  transfer  to  the  Secretary 
housing  that  is  constructed  or  provided  by  the  person  and  located  at  or  near  a  mili- 
tary installation  at  which  there  is  a  shortage  of  suitable  housing  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  members  of  the  Armed  Forces  and  their  dependents. 

"(b)  Requirements  for  Con\'EYANCe. — A  conveyance  of  real  property  may  be 
made  under  subsection  (a)  only  if — 

"(1)  the  Secretary  determines  that  the  real  property  to  be  conveyed  is  in 
excess  of  the  needs  of  the  military  installation; 

"(2)  the  fair  market  value  of  the  housing  to  be  received  by  the  Secretary 
in  exchange  for  the  real  property  to  be  conveyed  is  equal  to  or  greater  than  the 
fair  market  value  of  such  property,  including  any  improvements,  structures  or 
fixtures  located  thereon,  as  determined  by  the  Secretary;  and 

"(3)  in  the  event  the  fair  market  value  of  the  housing  is  less  than  the  fair 
market  value  of  the  real  property  to  be  conveyed,  including  any  improvements, 
structures  or  fixtures  located  thereon,  the  recipient  of  the  real  property  agrees 
to  pay  to  the  Secretary  the  amount  equal  to  the  excess  of  the  fair  market  value 
of  such  real  property  over  the  fair  market  value  of  the  housing. 


LXXIX 

"(c)  Deposit  of  Funds. — Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law,  the  Sec- 
retary may  deposit  funds  received  under  subsection  (b)(3)  in  the  Department  of  De- 
fense Housing  Improvement  Fund  estabhshed  under  section  2883(a)  of  this  title  to 
be  merged  with  and  used  for  the  same  purpose  as  funds  already  in  the  account. 

"(d)  Exemptions. — The  conveyance  of  real  property  under  this  section  shall  not 
be  subject  to  the  following: 

"(1)  Section  501  of  the  Stewart  B.  McKinney  Homeless  Assistance  Act  (42 

U.S.C.  11411). 

"(2)  Section  2693  of  this  title. 

"(e)  Additional  Terms. — The  Secretary  may  require  any  additional  terms  and 
conditions  in  connection  with  an  agreement  authorized  by  this  section  as  the  Sec- 
retary considers  appropriate  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  United  States. 

"(f)  Definition. — In  this  section,  the  term  'housing'  means  both  military  family 
housing  and  military  unaccompanied  housing.". 

(b)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  sub- 
chapter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"2869.  Conveyance  of  property  to  persons  who  construct  or  provide  military  housing.". 

(c)  Conforming  Amendment. — Section  2883(c)(1)  of  such  title  is  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  subparagraph: 

"(F)  Any  amounts  that  the  Secretary  concerned  transfers  to  that  Fund  pur- 
suant to  section  2869  of  this  title.". 

SEC.  2815.  INCREASE  IN  THRESHOLD  FOR  REPORTS  TO  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEES  ON 
REAL  PROPERTY  TRANSACTIONS. 

Section  2662  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking  "$500,000" 
each  place  it  appears  and  inserting  "the  unspecified  minor  military  construction 
project  limit  under  section  2805(c)(1)(B)  of  this  title". 

SEC.  2816.  CONTRACTING  WITH  LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS  FOR  MUNICIPAL  SERVICES. 

(a)  Authority. — Chapter  146  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  section: 

"§  2476.  Contracting  with  local  governments  for  municipal  services 

"Subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  chapter,  but  notwithstanding  any  other  provi- 
sion of  law  related  to  the  award  of  public  contracts,  the  Secretary  of  Defense  or  the 
Secretary  of  a  military  department  may  enter  directly  into  a  contract  or  other  agree- 
ment for  public  works,  utility  and  other  municipal  services  at  an  installation  or  fa- 
cility of  the  Department  of  Defense,  with  the  municipality  or  local  government  re- 
sponsible for  serving  the  area  that  includes  that  installation  or  facility.  The  Sec- 
retary concerned  may  enter  into  such  a  contract  or  agreement,  even  if  the  munici- 
pality or  local  government  to  which  the  Secretary  makes  award  is  required  by  law 
to  provide  those  services  to  the  public  without  direct  charge.". 

(b)  Conforming  Amendment. — Section  816  of  the  National  Defense  Authoriza- 
tion Act  for  Fiscal  Year  1995  (Public  Law  103-337;  108  Stat.  2820)  is  repealed. 

(c)  Clerical  Amendment. — The  table  of  sections  at  the  beginning  of  such  chap- 
ter is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  item: 

"2476.  Contracting  with  local  governments  for  municipal  services.". 

Subtitle  C— Other  Matters 

sec.  2821.  INCREASE  AUTHORITY  TO  LEASE  MILITARY  FAMILY  HOUSING  IN  ITALY. 

Section  2828(e)(2)  of  title  10,  United  States  Code,  is  amended  by  striking 
"2,000"  and  inserting  "2,800". 

sec.  2822.  CONVEYANCE  OF  ARMY  AND  AIR  FORCE  EXCHANGE  SERVICE  PROPERTY,  DALLAS, 
TEXAS. 

(a)  Conveyance  Authorized. — The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  authorize  the 
Army  and  Air  Force  Exchange  Service,  which  is  a  nonappropriated  fund  instrumen- 
tality of  the  United  States,  to  sell  all  right,  title,  and  interest  of  the  United  States 
in  and  to  a  parcel  of  real  property,  including  improvements  thereon,  that  is  located 
at  1515  Roundtable  Drive  in  Dallas,  Texas. 

(b)  Consideration. — As  consideration  for  conveyance  under  subsection  (a),  the 
purchaser  shall  pay,  in  a  single  lump  sum  payment,  an  amount  equal  to  the  fair 
market  value  of  the  real  property  conveyed,  as  determined  by  the  Secretary.  The 
payment  shall  be  handled  in  the  manner  provided  in  section  204(c)  of  the  Federal 
Property  and  Administrative  Services  Act  of  1949  (40  U.S.C.  485(c)).  Such  funds  and 


LXXX 

credit  receipts  shall  not  go  to  the  general  treasury  but  to  the  Department  of  Defense 
to  merge  with  and  become  available  for  the  same  purposes  and  period  as  the  ac- 
counts to  which  they  are  credited. 

(c)  Description  of  Property. — The  exact  acreage  and  legal  description  of  the 
real  property  to  be  conveyed  under  subsection  (a)  shall  be  determined  by  a  survey 
satisfactory  to  the  Secretary.  The  cost  of  the  survey  shall  be  borne  by  the  purchaser. 

(d)  Additional  Terms  and  Conditions. — The  Secretary  may  require  such  addi- 
tional terms  and  conditions  in  connection  with  the  conveyance  under  subsection  (a) 
as  the  Secretary  considers  appropriate  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  United  States. 

o 


FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZA- 
TION ACT— SECRETARY  OF  DEFENSE;  CHAIRMAN  OF 
THE  JOINTS  CHIEF  OF  STAFF;  UNDER  SECRETARY  OF 
DEFENSE  (COMPTROLLER) 


House  of  Representatives, 
Committee  on  Armed  Services, 
Washington,  DC,  Wednesday,  February  5,  2003. 
The  committee  met,  pursuant  to  call,  at  2  p.m.,  in  room  2118, 
Rayburn  House  Office  Building,  Hon.  Duncan  Hunter  (chairman  of 
the  committee)  presiding. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  HON.  DUNCAN  HUNTER,  A  REP- 
RESENTATIVE FROM  CALIFORNIA,  CHAIRMAN,  COMMITTEE 
ON  ARMED  SERVICES 

The  Chairman.  The  hearing  will  come  to  order. 

Today  the  committee  meets  to  receive  testimony  on  the  adminis- 
tration's defense  budget  request  for  fiscal  year  2004.  And  it  is  a 
pleasure  to  welcome  back  Secretary  of  Defense  Donald  Rumsfeld, 
General  Myers  and  Dr.  Zakheim. 

We  have  got  a  lot  of  ground  to  cover  today.  With  our  slightly  en- 
larged complement  of  61  members,  I  want  to  make  sure  that  we 
reserve  as  much  time  as  possible  for  individual  members  to  engage 
the  witnesses. 

And,  Mr.  Secretary,  this  is  the  third  time  you  have  appeared  be- 
fore the  committee  to  present  a  Bush  administration  budget  pro- 
posal, but  I  believe  it  is  fair  to  say  that  this  may  be  the  first  budget 
that  fully  reflects  the  priorities  of  the  administration  across  the 
board. 

We  will  spend  the  better  part  over  the  next  several  months  re- 
viewing and  debating  these  priorities,  and  through  this  process 
look  forward  to  arriving  at  a  common  view  on  the  best  approach 
to  provide  the  strongest  possible  defense  for  the  Nation. 

This  said,  Mr.  Secretary,  the  defense  program  being  put  forward 
presents  many  of  us  who  have  long  worked  in  the  trenches  for  a 
strong  defense  with  a  series  of  dilemmas. 

First,  you  deserve  tremendous  credit  for  sharply  reversing  a  dec- 
ade-long decline  in  defense  spending  that  characterized  the  pre- 
vious administration.  And  I  just  added  the  numbers  up,  and  this 
budget  is  some  $94  billion  above  the  last  budget  of  the  prior  admin- 
istration— 94  billion. 

However,  the  defense  budget  hole  that  was  carved  out  during  the 
1990s  will  take  more  than  two  years'  worth  of  significant  increases 
to  reverse.  Thus,  I  am  concerned  with  the  modest  four  percent  in- 
crease proposed  for  this  year  and  beyond,  and  I  am  worried  that 
we  are  somehow  calling  it  quits  before  the  job  is  done.  We  need  to 

(1) 


sustain  significant  defense  budget  increases  for  at  least  a  few  more 
years  in  order  to  buy  back  a  decade  of  systemic  damage  and  dis- 
investment across  the  defense  program. 

Only  then  can  we  afford  to  flatten  out  the  defense  investment 
curve  over  the  long  haul.  And  I  am  sure,  Mr.  Secretary,  you  are 
well  aware  of  the  aging  fleets  of  aircraft,  the  two-thirds  of  our 
naval  aircraft  that  are  over  15  years  old,  the  18-V2-year-old  average 
age  of  Army  helicopters,  and  down  the  line. 

Notwithstanding  marginal  increases  in  the  key  modernization  ac- 
counts, we  are  still  lagging  far  behind  what  we  believe  is  necessary 
to  support  a  modern,  sustainable  and  sufficient  combat  force  over 
the  long-term.  The  proposed  $72  billion  for  procurement  that  is  re- 
flected in  this  budget  falls  short  of  what  has  been  broadly  identi- 
fied as  a  necessary  level  of  reinvestment  to  sustain  the  current 
force.  I  know  you  are  aware  of  the  CBO  analysis  that  says  that  90- 
billion-plus  was  the  right  number,  and  the  Joint  Chiefs  have  said 
we  need  to  do  something  in  excess  of  $100  billion  per  year  to  sus- 
tain the  current  force. 

Further,  the  proposed  budget  recommends  retiring  or  canceling 
programs  in  virtually  every  key  combat  category  to  carve  out  the 
resources,  to  reinvest  in  transformational  future  systems. 

I  have  never  been  one  to  argue  that  we  should  not  cancel  or  re- 
tire systems  that  have  truly  outlived  their  useful  life  or  purpose, 
but  starting  with  the  Air  Force  decision  to  retire  a  third  of  the  B- 
1  bomber  fleet,  we  continue  to  cut  into  the  very  foundation  of  our 
conventional  combat  power  solely  to  free  up  funds  for  other  needed 
initiatives. 

Simply  put,  Mr.  Secretary,  we  should  not  be  forced  to  incur  such 
near-term  risks  in  terms  of  diminished  combat  capability  in  order 
to  invest  in  the  future  solely  because  we  have  not  properly 
resourced  the  defense  budget. 

Final  point:  The  Department  will  soon  approach  the  halfway 
point  for  the  current  fiscal  year  and  still  has  received  no  additional 
resources  for  the  billions  of  dollars  in  costs  associated  with  the  on- 
going war  on  terrorism,  homeland  security  support,  and  generally 
increased  pace  of  operations  since  September  11th. 

This  committee  has  over  the  years  seen  the  lasting  damage  done 
when  the  Department  was  asked  to  pay  for  significant  military  op- 
erations out  of  hide,  with  the  promise  of  being  made  whole  some 
later  time  in  the  year.  We  know  that  once  the  services  start  cancel- 
ing or  deferring  key  maintenance  and  training  activities  to  pay 
these  bills,  you  never  make  up  the  lost  opportunities,  and  it  invari- 
ably results  in  a  downward  spiral  in  overall  readiness. 

I  realize  I  am  preaching  to  the  choir  a  bit  here,  but  given  the 
enormity  of  the  bills  the  Department  faces  during  this  current 
year,  it  is  important  to  stress  the  point  once  again  that  early  action 
should  be  taken  to  replenish  operational  accounts  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible and  thus  avoid  the  familiar  negative  effects  of  operating  in 
this  manner. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  look  forward  to  your  testimony  today  and  trust 
you  will  fully  address  these  concerns  in  your  presentation  and 
through  the  continuing  dialogue  that  you  will  sustain  with  the 
committee  as  this  process  moves  forward. 


And  let  me  just  say,  Mr.  Secretary,  on  a  personal  level,  I  want 
you  to  know  that  I  feel  that  we  could  not  be  better  represented, 
better  led  in  the  Department  of  Defense.  Your  challenges  are  enor- 
mous, you  have  got  a  great  Armed  Services  Committee  that  wants 
to  work  with  you  to  make  our  military  more  effective. 

This  Nation  has  been  called  in  a  very  difficult  time,  the  armed 
forces  of  this  Nation  have  been  called  to  serve  their  country  in  dif- 
ficult circumstances.  And  believe  me,  every  member  of  this  commit- 
tee is  willing  to  put  their  shoulder  to  the  wheel  to  work  together 
with  you  as  a  team.  There  has  never  been  a  time  in  which  it  is 
more  important  for  us  to  move  forward  from  our  shores  in  imple- 
menting American  foreign  policy  under  our  commander  in  chief, 
speaking  with  one  voice,  and  giving  you  the  tools  that  you  need  to 
get  the  job  done. 

So  we  have  great  faith  in  you.  You  have  got  a  difficult  challenge 
ahead  of  you.  We  will  work  with  you. 

And  with  those  remarks,  I  would  like  to  turn  to  my  great  friend, 
the  gentleman  from  Missouri,  who  is  our  partner  and  your  partner 
in  defending  this  country,  Mr.  Skelton. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Hunter  can  be  found  in  the  Ap- 
pendix on  page  67.1 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  IKE  SKELTON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  MISSOURI,  RANKING  MEMBER,  COMMITTEE  ON 
ARMED  SERVICES 

Mr.  Skelton.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  very  much. 

At  the  outset,  let  me  say  to  everyone  here  that  I  am  truly  hon- 
ored to  have  the  opportunity  to  work  with  my  good  friend,  my  col- 
league through  the  years,  Duncan  Hunter,  in  this  the  108th  Con- 
gress. And  I  congratulate  you  on  being  our  chairman. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld,  General  Myers,  Dr.  Zakheim,  thank  you  so 
much  for  being  with  us.  As  we  all  know,  we  meet  at  a  dangerous 
time.  Secretary  Powell's  presentation  to  the  United  Nations  Secu- 
rity Council  this  morning  was  sobering,  and  it  demonstrates  the 
need  to  disarm  Iraq.  I  commend  the  administration  for  working 
within  the  Security  Council  to  urge  you,  and  I  urge  you  to  continue 
to  do  so. 

We  must  act  militarily.  If  so,  it  is  better  to  fight  under  a  Security 
Council  sanction  and  with  the  broadest  coalition  possible. 

Now,  at  the  same  time,  we  face  a  deepening  crisis  on  the  Korean 
Peninsula  and  continuing  operations  around  the  world  in  the  war 
on  terrorism.  Our  Nation  is  unique  in  its  global  leadership,  and 
that  leadership  means  being  able  to  handle  multiple  conflicts  si- 
multaneously. The  administration's  national  military  strategy  ac- 
knowledges this  reality,  and  our  planning  and  budgeting  must  also. 

I  applaud  the  overall  spending  level  for  defense  that  has  been 
put  forward.  This  is  much  like — much  like,  in  the  budget,  including 
continued  pay  raises  for  our  troops  who  are  now  deployed  more 
than  ever — the  investment  of  nearly  $25  billion  in  transformational 
technologies  and  weapons  programs  and  the  purchase  of  seven  new 
ships.  But  our  global  leadership  role  in  a  time  of  multiple  crises 
raises,  as  you  know,  questions  as  well. 

First,  the  Department's  funding  request  of  $380  billion  does  not 
include  the  cost  of  operations;  Duncan  Hunter  has  already  men- 


tioned  this.  We  need  to  pay  attention  to  it.  I  know  how  difficult  it 
is  to  estimate  what  future  operations  will  cost,  but  Congress  can 
use  your  best  estimate  as  to  what  the  full  defense  bill  might  be  for 
the  fiscal  year  2004. 

Second,  global  leadership  means  global  presence.  The  visibility  of 
our  troops  and  our  ships  around  the  world  both  reassures  our 
friends  and  deters  our  adversaries.  I  am  pleased  with  the  ship- 
building plan  in  this  budget.  Decommissionings  will  bring  the 
naval  fleet  size  down  to  291  by  fiscal  year  2006,  a  level  we  haven't 
hit  since  1916.  Now,  I  know  that  our  ships  have  far  greater  capa- 
bilities now,  but  the  geography  of  the  ocean  is  unchanged.  There 
is  a  great  deal  to  be  said  about  the  presence  of  a  sailor  walking 
down  the  street  in  another  country. 

And  last,  I  return  to  the  theme  of  end  strength.  Our  global  oper- 
ations and  the  looming  threats  in  Iraq  and  North  Korea  are  put- 
ting a  great  strain  on  our  troops.  The  increase  in  Special  Oper- 
ations forces  may  well  come  from  existing  Army  billets.  Clearly,  we 
need  more  Special  Operations  troops,  but  these  should  come  from 
end-strength  increases,  not  by  cannibalizing  the  Army  forces. 

Now,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  congratulate  you  on  the  work  that  you 
have  done.  I  know  that  you  will  continue  to  do  the  high  level,  dif- 
ficult, challenging  work  that  is  ahead  of  you.  And  I  want  you  to 
know  that  we  all  stand  ready  to  work  with  you  on  all  of  these  pri- 
orities. 

And  making  trade-offs  in  a  time  of  war  is  very,  very  difficult, 
even  with  a  defense  budget  that  is  increasing  in  size.  So  I  con- 
gratulate you  for  your  fine  efforts,  and  we  look  forward  to  working 
with  you,  shoulder  to  shoulder. 

Thank  you. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Skelton  can  be  found  in  the  Ap- 
pendix on  page  72.] 

The  Chairman.  General  Myers,  Mr.  Zakheim,  and.  Secretary 
Rumsfeld,  thank  you  for  being  with  us. 

And  Mr.  Secretary,  the  floor  is  yours. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  DONALD  H.  RUMSFELD,  SECRETARY,  U.S. 
DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
Congressman  Skelton.  I  have  submitted  a  much  longer  statement, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  would  appreciate  it  if  it  be  put  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Without  objection,  it  will  be  put  in  the  record. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commit- 
tee, we  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  update  the  committee  on 
our  progress  in  transforming  the  Department  of  Defense,  and  to 
discuss  the  President's  budget  for  fiscal  year  2004  to  2009. 

I  particularly  appreciate  having  the  session  in  the  afternoon  so 
so  many  of  us  could  watch  the  excellent  and  powerful  presentation 
by  Secretary  Powell  at  the  United  Nations  this  morning. 

In  response  to  your  comment,  Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  just  say  a 
word  or  two.  First,  I  fully  agree  that  it  would  have  been  preferable 
had  we  had  our  full  budget  approved  last  year.  And  I  appreciate 
the  efforts  of  this  committee  to  see  that  that  could  happen.  But,  un- 
fortunately, it  was  not  the  case. 


Second,  with  respect  to  the  size  of  the  budget,  we  are  certainly 
engaged  in  a  war  on  terror  and  an  effort  to  protect  America  and 
our  aUies  in  a  time  when  dictators  are  tr3dng  to  get  weapons  of 
mass  destruction.  And  the  more  we  learn,  the  more  we  realize  how 
large  and  demanding  these  challenges  are  proving  to  be. 

The  2004  numbers  represent  our  best  estimate  at  the  time  the 
budget  was  developed.  It  may  well  change  over  the  coming  period 
as  we  learn  more  about  the  demands  of  safety  on  a  worldwide 
basis.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind,  for  example,  that  we  will  be 
back  with  a  supplemental,  and  reasonably  soon,  to  fund  the  Global 
War  on  Terrorism  as  well  as  the  costs  of  flowing  forces  in  connec- 
tion with  support  to  the  diplomacy  in  Iraq. 

We  also  have  under  way  intense  efforts  to  transform  the  Depart- 
ment and  streamline  and  modernize  to  save  the  taxpayers  money. 
As  those  efforts  succeed,  we  ought  to  be  able  to  shift  some  of  those 
resources  towards  more  urgent  and  more  productive  uses. 

President  Bush  vowed  on  taking  office  that  he  would  order  an 
immediate  comprehensive  review  of  our  military.  He  said  that  he 
would  give  his  team  at  the  Department  a  broad  mandate  to  chal- 
lenge the  status  quo  and  envision  a  new  architecture  of  American 
defense  for  the  decade  to  come. 

For  the  past  two  years,  we  have  pursued  the  goals  that  he  set 
out.  We  have  fashioned  a  new  defense  strategy,  a  new  approach  to 
sizing  our  forces,  a  new  approach  to  balancing  risks.  We  have  reor- 
ganized the  Department  somewhat  to  better  focus  on  space  activi- 
ties. We  have  adopted  a  new  unified  command  plan  which  estab- 
lishes the  new  Northern  Command  to  better  defend  the  homeland, 
a  Joint  Forces  Command  that  focuses  on  transformation,  a  new 
Strategic  Command  responsible  for  early  warning  of  and  defense 
against  missile  attack  and  the  conduct  of  long-range  attacks. 

We  have  expanded  the  mission  of  Special  Operations  Command 
so  that  it  cannot  only  support  missions  that  are  directed  by  re- 
gional combatant  commanders,  but  also  plan  and  execute  its  own 
missions  in  pursuit  of  the  Global  War  on  Terror. 

We  have  reorganized  and  revitalized  the  missile  defense  research 
development  and  testing  program,  and  are  freed  from  the  con- 
straints of  the  ABM  Antibalhstic  Missile  (ABM)  Treaty.  We  have 
completed  the  nuclear  posture  review  with  a  new  approach  to  de- 
terrence that  will  enhance  our  security  while  permitting  truly  his- 
toric deep  reductions  in  offensive  nuclear  weapons. 

We  have  moved  from  a  threat-based  to  a  capabilities-based  ap- 
proach to  defense  planning,  focusing  not  only  on  who  might  threat- 
en us,  or  where  or  when,  and  more  on  how  we  might  be  threatened 
and  what  portfolio  of  capabilities  this  country  will  need  to  deter 
and  defend  against  those  new  threats. 

These  are  critically  important  accomplishments.  In  my  view,  they 
will  benefit  our  national  security  for  many,  many  years  to  come. 
But  as  important  as  these  changes  are,  they  must  be  only  the  be- 
ginning. 

To  win  the  Global  War  on  Terror,  our  Armed  Forces  need  to  be 
flexible,  light  and  agile,  so  that  they  can  respond  quickly  to  sudden 
changes  in  the  world.  The  same  is  true  of  the  men  and  women  who 
support  them  in  the  Department,  who  also  need  to  be  flexible  and 
agile  so  that  we  can  move  money  and  shift  people,  and  design  and 


buy  new  weapons  more  quickly  and  respond  to  the  frequent,  sud- 
den changes  in  our  security  environment. 

Today,  we  do  not  have  that  kind  of  agiHty.  In  an  age  when  ter- 
rorists move  information  at  the  speed  of  an  e-mail,  money  at  the 
speed  of  a  wire  transfer,  and  people  at  the  speed  of  a  commercial 
jetliner,  the  Defense  Department,  I  regret  to  say,  is  still  bogged 
down  in  bureaucratic  processes  of  the  Industrial  Age,  not  the  Infor- 
mation Age. 

Some  of  these  difficulties  are  self-imposed,  to  be  sure,  but  some 
are  the  result  of  law  and  regulation.  Together,  they  have  created 
a  culture  that  too  often  stifles  innovation.  Consider  just  a  few  of 
the  obstacles  we  face  each  day.  Think  of  this  2004  budget  as  we 
consider  it  today. 

It  was  developed  by  the  Department  of  Defense  from  March  to 
December  of  last  year.  That  was  the  setting  in  which  this  budget 
was  developed.  The  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  (0MB)  con- 
sidered it  from  December  to  February,  when  the  President  pre- 
sented it  to  the  Congress,  so  you  have  just  received  it.  Congress 
will  likely  be  considering  it  from  now  to  probably  October  or  No- 
vember, as  it  goes  through  the  authorization  and  the  appropriation 
and  the  conferences. 

And  if — as  in  the  past — the  Congress  will  probably  make  some 
10  to  20  percent  changes  in  what  the  President  proposed,  DOD  will 
then  try  to  live  with  what  is  left  during  that  period  from  October 
of  this  year  until  October — September  30th,  to  be  precise — of  2004. 
That  means,  at  any  given  time  during  the  coming  fiscal  year,  that 
this  budget  will  address  the  plan  that  we  developed  last  year,  will 
be  between  14  to  30  months  old  while  we  are  trying  to  implement 
the  product  that  comes  out  of  the  Congress.  And  we  will  be  doing 
this  in  a  world  that  is  changing  monthly  before  our  eyes.  At  the 
minimum,  we  will  always  be  between  one  and  two  and  a  half  years 
out  of  date  from  the  time  the  budget  was  fashioned  and  the  time 
we  are  actually  implementing  it. 

The  Department  of  Defense  spends  an  average  of  $42  million  an 
hour.  We  are  not  allowed  to  move  more  than  $15  million  from  one 
account  to  another  without  getting  permission  from  four  to  six  com- 
mittees, congressional  committees,  a  process  that  can  sometimes 
take  several  months  to  complete. 

Today,  we  estimate  we  have  some  320,000  uniformed  people 
doing  nonmilitary  jobs,  yet  we  are  calling  up  Reserves  to  fight  the 
Global  War  on  Terror. 

We  must  prepare  and  submit  26,000  pages  of  justifications  and 
over  800  required  reports  to  Congress  each  year,  many  of  marginal 
value  and  probably  some  never  read;  yet,  they  consume  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  hours,  to  say  nothing  of  the  trees  that  are  de- 
stroyed. These  problems  make  it  increasingly  difficult  to  balance 
the  risk. 

Consider  these  facts:  I  am  told  that  when  I  was  Secretary  of  De- 
fense the  last  time  in  1977,  that  the  Defense  authorization  bill  was 
16  pages  long.  In  2001,  it  has  grown  to  534  pages. 

In  1977,  Congress  made  a  total  of  46  changes  to  the  Army  and 
Defense  Agency  Research,  Development  and  Testing  Evaluation 
programs.    In   2001,   that   number  had   grown   to   450   individual 


changes  made  by  the  various  committees  in  the  House  and  the 
Senate. 

For  every  change  Congress  makes  in  a  program,  there  is  a  cost 
elsewhere  in  the  budget;  that  is  to  say,  every  dollar  added  one 
place  means  a  dollar  has  to  be  taken  out,  whether  it  is  for  housing 
or  spare  parts  or  transformation,  whatever,  making  it  difficult  to 
all  of  us  to  keep  in  mind  the  importance  of  balancing  the  risks. 

We  spend  millions  of  taxpayer  dollars  training  top-notch  officers 
and  senior  enlisted,  giving  them  experience,  and  then  we  shove 
them  out  the  door  in  their  40s  and  early  50s  when  they  are  at  the 
top  of  their  game.  And,  of  course,  we  end  up  paying  60  percent  of 
their  base  pay  and  providing  them  with  comprehensive  health  care 
for  the  rest  of  their  lives. 

We  could  benefit,  in  my  view,  from  their  services  longer,  and  we 
need  to  find  ways  to  do  that.  The  point  is  this:  We  are  fighting  the 
first  wars  of  the  21st  century  with  a  Defense  Department  that  was 
fashioned  to  meet  the  challenge  of  the  mid-20th  century.  It  has  to 
change. 

Last  year.  Congress  enacted  historic  legislation  to  create  a  new 
Department  of  Homeland  Security  and  rearrange  our  government 
to  be  better  prepared  for  potential  attacks  against  our  homes, 
schools  and  places  of  work.  I  feel  we  should  now  address  the  De- 
partment of  Defense.  We  are  already  working  with  a  number  of  you 
and  with  your  staffs  to  help  fashion  legislation  that  we  can  present 
to  you  later  this  year  to  try  to  bring  the  Defense  Department  into 
the  21st  century  and  to  transform  how  it  moves  money,  manages 
people  and  buys  weapons. 

We  are  looking  at,  among  other  things,  proposals  to  establish  a 
national  security  personnel  system  that  would  give  the  Department 
of  Defense  greater  flexibility  in  how  it  handles  and  manages  its  ci- 
vilian personnel. 

Today,  because  that  task  is  difficult,  we  find  frequently  we  are 
using  military  people,  people  in  uniform,  for  nonmilitary  jobs,  be- 
cause we  can  manage  them  much  more  readily.  We  find  we  are 
using  contractors  rather  than  civilian  employees,  again  because  you 
can  manage  a  contractor  more  effectively.  A  onetime  reorganization 
of  the  Department  with  some  fast-track  approval  procedures  may 
be  proposed.  We  hope  to  establish  more  flexible  rules  for  the  flow 
of  money  through  the  Department,  giving  us  the  ability  to  move 
somewhat  larger  sums  between  programs  and  priorities  so  we  can 
respond  more  quickly  to  urgent  needs. 

We  would  like  to  establish  a  two-year  budget  cycle,  so  that  the 
hundreds  of  people  who  invest  time  and  energy  to  rebuild  major 
programs  every  year  can  be  freed  up  and  not  be  required  to  do  it 
on  an  annual  basis. 

We  would  like  to  try  to  eliminate  some  of  the  regulations  that 
make  it  impossible  or  unattractive  for  many  small  enterprises  to  do 
business  with  the  Department:  Expand  authority  for  competitive 
outsourcing  so  we  can  get  military  personnel  out  of  nonmilitary 
tasks  and  back  into  the  field;  establish  more  flexible  military  re- 
tirement rules  so  that  those  who  do  want  to  serve  longer  have  the 
option  to  do  so.  We  are  consulting  with  you  and  other  interested 
Members  of  Congress  on  these  ideas,  and  we  will  work  with  you 
to  try  to  reach  these  goals. 


8 

Where  we  have  authority  to  fix  those  problems,  we  are  working 
hard  on  it,  and  we  have  a  responsibihty  to  do  so.  But  to  get  the 
kind  of  agiUty  and  flexibihty  that  we  beHeve  is  required  in  the  21st 
century  security  environment,  we  will  need  some  legislative  relief. 

As  to  the  budget,  last  year's  budget,  the  2003  request,  was  final- 
ized just  as  our  re\aew  process  was  nearing  completion.  We  were 
able  to  begin  funding  some  transforming  initiatives  as  the  new  de- 
fense strategy  came  into  focus.  But,  it  is  this  year's  budget,  Mr. 
Chairman,  as  you  properly  said,  the  2004  request  before  you,  that 
is  really  the  first  to  fully  reflect  the  new  defense  strategies  and  the 
new  policies  I  outlined  earlier. 

Balancing  risk  between  near  and  long-term  challenges  is  difficult 
in  peacetime.  But  today,  to  best  serve  our  country,  we  need  to  real- 
ly accomplish  three  difficult  challenges  at  once.  We  need  to  success- 
fiilly  fight  the  Global  War  on  Terror.  We  need  to  prepare  for  near- 
term  threats  by  making  long-delayed  investments  in  readiness, 
people,  modernization,  and  we  have  to  also  prepare  for  the  future 
by  seeing  that  we  make  the  kinds  of  investments  that — whereby  we 
will  be  transforming  for  the  21st  century.  The  2004  budget  request 
is  designed  to  try  to  do  all  three. 

Our  defense  review  identified  six  goals  that  drive  our  trans- 
formation efforts.  First,  we  have  to  be  able  to  defend  the  United 
States  homeland  and  the  bases  of  operation  overseas. 

Second,  we  have  to  be  able  to  project  and  sustain  forces  in  dis- 
tant theaters. 

Third,  we  must  be  able  to  deny  enemies  sanctuary. 

And  fourth,  we  have  to  improve  our  space  capabilities  and  main- 
tain unhindered  access  to  space. 

Fifth,  we  have  to  harness  our  country^s  advantages  in  informa- 
tion technology  to  link  up  different  kinds  of  U.S.  forces  and  allied 
forces  so  that  they  can  fight  jointly. 

And  sixth,  we  have  to  be  able  to  protect  U.S.  information  net- 
works from  attack  and  to  disable  the  information  networks  of  ad- 
versaries where  necessary.  The  President's  budget  requests  funds 
for  investments  that  will  support  each  of  those  categories. 

Over  the  next  six  years,  we  have  proposed  a  30  percent  increase 
in  procurement  funding  and  a  65  percent  increase  in  funding  for 
research,  development,  testing  and  evaluation  above  the  2002  base- 
line budget,  a  total  investment  of  about  $150  billion  annually. 

A  total  investment  in  transforming  military  capabilities  in  the 
2004  request  is  $24.3  bilHon,  which  is  about  $240  billion  over  the 
future-year  defense  plan.  To  prepare  for  the  threats  we  will  face 
later  this  decade,  the  2004  budget  request  increases  investments  in 
a  number  of  critical  areas. 

Over  the  next  six  years,  the  President  requested  15  percent  in- 
creases in  military  personnel  accounts,  above  the  2000  baseline 
budget.  That  is  an  increase  in  funding  for  family  housing  by  ten 
percent  over  the  same  period. 

Over  the  next  6  years,  we  have  requested  a  20  percent  increase 
in  operation  and  maintenance  accounts  above  the  2002  baseline. 
We  have  added  $40  billion  for  readiness  of  all  of  the  services  and 
6  billion  for  facilities  sustainment  over  the  same  period.  These  in- 
vestments should  help  us  put  a  stop  to  the  past  practice  of  raiding 


the  investment  accounts  to  pay  the  immediate  operation  and  main- 
tenance needs. 

This  2004  budget  does  not,  and  I  repeat  does  not,  include  funds 
for  operations  in  the  Global  War  on  Terror.  Last  year,  we  re- 
quested, but  Congress  did  not  approve,  the  $10  billion  that  we 
knew  that  we  would  need  for  the  first  months  of  this  fiscal  year 
to  fight  the  Global  War  on  Terror.  Because  we  are  still  without 
those  funds,  every  month  since  October  1st — October,  November, 
December,  January  and  now  February — we  have  had  to  borrow 
from  other  programs  to  pay  the  costs  of  the  war.  We  are  robbing 
Peter  to  pay  Paul. 

That  does  not  include  the  cost  of  preparations  for  a  possible  con- 
tingency in  Iraq,  and  the  cost  of  the  force  flows  that  have  taken 
place  thus  far. 

This  pattern  is  fundamentally  harmful  to  our  ability  to  manage 
the  Department.  In  our  2004  request,  we  increased  the  shipbuild- 
ing budget  by  $2.7  billion,  making  good  on  our  hope  last  year  that 
we  could  increase  shipbuilding  from  five  to  seven  ships.  We  in- 
creased the  Special  Operations  budget  by  $1.5  billion  to  pay  for 
equipment  lost  in  the  Global  War  on  Terror  and  for  an  addition  of 
close  to  1,900  personnel. 

We  increased  military  and  civilian  pay  by  $3.7  billion.  We  in- 
creased missile  defense  by  $1.5  billion,  including  increased  funds 
for  research  and  development  (R&D)  of  promising  new  technologies 
and  to  deploy  a  small  number  of  interceptors  beginning  in  the  year 
2004. 

The  President  has  asked  Congress  for  a  total  of  $379.9  billion  for 
fiscal  year  2004,  a  $15.3  billion  increase  over  last  year's  budget.  It 
is  a  large  amount  of  the  taxpayers'  money.  But  even  with  that  in- 
crease, as  large  as  it  is,  we  still  have  to  make  tough  choices  be- 
tween competing  demands. 

So,  let  me  state  it  out  straight.  Despite  the  significant  increase 
in  shipbuilding,  we  did  not  get  the  shipbuilding  rate  up  to  the  de- 
sired steady  state  of  ten  ships  a  year.  Because  of  planned  retire- 
ments of  other  ships,  we  will  drop  below  the  300-ship  fleet  during 
the  course  of  the  future-year  Defense  plan.  The  Navy  is  in  the  proc- 
ess of  transforming,  and  we  have  increased  shipbuilding  in  2004, 
but  we  do  not  want  to  lock  ourselves  into  a  shipbuilding  program 
now,  until  we  know  precisely  which  ships  we  will  want  to  build  in 
the  outyears. 

We  have  not  been  able  to  modernize  our  tactical  air  forces  fast 
enough  to  reduce  the  average  age  of  our  aircraft  fleet.  We  have  not 
fully  resolved  our  so-called  "high-demand,  low-density"  problems, 
systems  like  J-STARS  which,  because  they  have  been  chronically 
underfunded  in  the  past,  will  still  be  in  somewhat  short  supply  in 
this  budget. 

We  opted  not  to  modernize  a  number  of  legacy  programs,  taking 
on  some  near-term  risks,  as  you  point  out,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  fund 
transforming  capabilities  that  we  believe  that  we  will  need  in  this 
fast-moving  world. 

We  did  not  achieve  the  level  of  growth  in  science  and  technology 
accounts  we  had  hoped  for.  Our  request  is  for  $10.2  billion,  which 
comes  to  about  2.69  percent  of  the  2004  budget,  which  is  below  our 
target  of  about  3  percent.  That  is  bad  news. 


10 

But  there  is  good  news,  as  well.  In  making  difficult  choices  be- 
tween competing  priorities,  we  believe  we  made  better  choices  this 
year  because  we  followed  the  new  approach  to  balancing  risks  that 
we  developed  in  last  year's  defense  review,  an  approach  that  takes 
into  account  not  just  the  risks  in  operations  and  in  contingency 
plans,  but  also  the  risks  to  people,  to  modernization  and  to  trans- 
formation. We  believe  the  result  is  a  more  balanced  approach,  and 
as  a  result,  a  more  coherent,  total  program. 

As  such,  it  is  a  program  that  can  be  adversely  unbalanced  unin- 
tentionally unless  we  are  careful  and  we  work  together  with  you, 
the  authorizers,  with  the  appropriators  and  with  the  conference 
committees  in  this  and  in  the  other  body  as  we  complete  our  work. 

While  we  are  requesting  increased  funds,  the  services  have 
stepped  up  to  the  plate  and  will  be  canceling,  slowing  or  restructur- 
ing a  number  of  programs.  In  all,  the  Army,  the  Department  of  the 
Navy  and  the  Air  Force  have  achieved  savings  of  some  $80  billion 
over  the  future-year  defense  plan,  money  that  will  be  reinvested  in 
the  services,  in  capabilities  that  we  believe  and  they  believe  are 
necessary  for  the  21st  century. 

As  a  result  of  all  of  these  strategic  investments  and  decisions,  we 
can  now  see  the  effects  of  transforming  begin  to  unfold.  Consider 
just  some  of  the  changes  that  are  taking  place:  Today  the  missile 
defense  research,  development  and  testing  program  has  been  revi- 
talized, and  we  are  on  track  for  a  limited  land-sea  deployment  in 
2004  and  2005. 

Today,  we  are  converting  four  Trident  ballistic  missile  sub- 
marines (SSBN)  into  conventional  guided-missile  submarines 
(SSGN)  capable  of  delivering  Special  Forces  and  cruise  missiles  to 
denied  areas. 

Today,  we  are  proposing  to  build  the  CVN-21  aircraft  carrier  in 
2007,  which  will  include  many  of  the  new — many,  but  not  all,  of 
the  new  capabilities  that  were  previously  scheduled  to  be  intro- 
duced only  in  2001. 

Today,  we  have  seen  targeted  pay  increases  and  other  reforms 
help  to  retain  midcareer  officers  and  non-commissioned  officers 
(NCOs)  so  that  fewer  of  them  leave  the  service  while  still  in  their 
prime,  and  so  the  country  can  continue  to  benefit  from  their  talent 
and  their  experience. 

We  believe  these  are  positive  changes  that  should  ensure  that  fu- 
ture administrations  will  have  the  capabilities  that  they  will  need 
to  defend  our  country. 

Finally,  I  believe  that  the  transparency  of  the  process  that  we 
have  used  to  develop  this  budget  has  been  unprecedented.  For  sev- 
eral months  now,  the  officials  of  the  Department  of  Defense  have 
been  providing  detailed  briefings  to  those  interested  here  on  Cap- 
itol Hill,  Members  and  staff  as  well,  so  that  Congress  is  not  simply 
being  presented  with  the  budget  today,  but  has  been  kept  in  the 
loop  as  decisions  were  being  thought  through  and  made. 

Our  goal  was  to  ensure  that  Members  and  staff  have  every  op- 
portunity to  better  understand  the  thinking  that  lies  behind  these 
many  proposals  in  this  comprehensive  budget.  I  am  told  that  the 
extent  of  consultation  from  the  Department  to  the  Congress  this 
year  has  been  unprecedented. 


11 

We  hope  that  this  spirit  of  openness  and  cooperation  can  con- 
tinue in  the  period  ahead.  We  must  work  together  to  bring  DOD 
out  of  the  Industrial  Age  and  help  get  it  arranged  for  the  fast- 
paced  security  environment  of  the  21st  century. 

I  close  by  saying  that  transformation  is  not  an  event.  There  is 
no  point  where  the  Defense  Department  will  move  from  being 
untransformed  to  transformed.  Our  goal  is  to  set  in  motion  a  proc- 
ess of  continuing  transformation  and  a  culture  that  will  help  to 
keep  the  United  States  several  steps  ahead  of  any  potential  adver- 
saries. To  do  that,  we  need  not  only  resources,  but  equally  we  need 
the  freedom  to  use  them  with  speed  and  agility  so  that  we  can  re- 
spond quickly  to  the  new  threats  that  we  will  face  as  this  century 
unfolds. 

I  feel  deeply  about  the  urgency  of  seeing  that  we  transform  the 
Department  and  enable  it  to  serve  the  American  people  and  our 
friends  and  allies  in  a  responsible  way  in  the  period  ahead. 

Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  for  a  very  full  state- 
ment. And  thank  you  for  your  service  to  the  country. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  Secretary  Rumsfeld  can  be  found  in 
the  Appendix  on  page  76.] 

The  Chairman.  And  General  Myers,  the  floor  is  yours,  sir. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEN.  RICHARD  MYERS,  USAF,  CHAIRMAN, 
JOINT  CHIEFS  OF  STAFF 

General  MYERS.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Congressman 
Skelton  and  other  distinguished  members  of  the  committee.  Thank 
you  for  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  you  today  to  report  on  the 
state  of  the  United  States  Armed  Forces. 

Mr.  Chairman,  like  the  Secretary,  I  request  that  my  prepared 
statement  be  submitted  for  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Without  objection. 

General  MYERS.  Thank  you,  sir.  I  will  make  some  short  introduc- 
tory remarks,  then  we  will  be  happy  to  take  your  questions. 

Today,  our  Nation's  Armed  Forces  remain  engaged  in  a  wide  va- 
riety of  missions.  Many  of  those  missions  are  done  far  from  the 
public  eye.  This  past  weekend,  however,  we  witnessed  one  of  those 
missions  end  tragically.  Three  naval  officers,  two  Air  Force  officers, 
and  their  fellow  courageous  astronauts  lost  their  lives  while  bring- 
ing the  shuttle  back  to  Earth.  Their  example  and  accomplishment 
will  remain  etched  in  our  hearts  forever,  and  I  join  with  Secretary 
Rumsfeld  and  Members  of  the  Congress  in  extending  my  deepest 
sympathies  to  their  families. 

Around  the  world  our  soldiers,  sailors,  airmen,  Marines,  Coast 
Guardsmen  carry  on  their  missions.  There  is  no  more  important 
task  before  them  than  to  bring  and  take  the  fight  to  the  terrorists. 
Active  duty,  Reserve,  DOD  civilians,  together  with  members  of  the 
interagency  and  our  coalition  partners  form  one  team  in  this  effort. 
Our  servicemen  and  women  remain  a  highly  effective  instrument 
of  national  power.  And  every  day  this  team  helps  disrupt  and  cap- 
ture terrorist  cells  around  the  world. 

In  addition,  our  combined  efforts  in  Afghanistan  have  accom- 
plished a  great  deal  over  the  past  year.  We  have  restored  hope  to 
the  people  of  Afghanistan,  and  that  nation  is  on  the  way  to  recov- 


12 

ery;  but  there  is  still  much  work  to  be  done  in  Afghanistan,  as 
there  is  in  the  war  on  terrorism. 

As  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  Defense  have  said,  this 
war  will  last  a  long  time.  But  let  there  be  no  doubt  we  will  win. 
No  matter  what  tactic  they  confront,  I  am  convinced  that  improv- 
ing our  joint  warfighting  will  be  central  to  our  future  success.  So 
let  me  just  take  a  minute  and  share  with  you  what  we  are  doing 
in  that  area. 

As  you  look  at  joint  warfighting  today  and  tomorrow,  in  my  view, 
improving  our  command  and  control  capabilities  is  the  single  most 
essential  investment  we  can  make.  Enhanced  command  and  con- 
trol, combined  with  intelligence  that  is  rapidly  shared  among 
warfighters,  will  allow  our  joint  commanders  to  integrate  and  unite 
separate  service  capabilities  in  a  single  operation  or  across  a  cam- 
paign. 

In  my  view,  that  translates  directly  to  increased  efficiencies,  but 
more  importantly,  increased  effectiveness. 

To  reinforce  this  potential,  the  President  directed  Joint  Forces 
Command  to  focus  on  transforming  our  joint  team  to  meet  the  chal- 
lenges of  this  century. 

As  a  result,  this  command's  efforts  included  the  first  major  joint 
field  experiment,  Millennium  Challenge  02.  This  experiment  dem- 
onstrated a  variety  of  new  concepts  and  systems  that  enable  criti- 
cal command  and  control  collaborative  information  sharing  and 
time-sensitive  targeting  capabilities.  Investing  in  these  capabilities 
is  essential  to  winning  in  combat  today  and  in  the  future.  Informa- 
tion, General  Franks  and  U.S.  Central  Command  (CENTCOM)  are 
using  concepts,  technologies,  and  capabilities  from  Millennium 
Challenge  02  in  their  current  operational  planning  in  case  of  an 
Iraq  contingency. 

One  of  the  positive  results  from  Millennium  Challenge  02  is  the 
potential  for  a  joint  commander  to  communicate  with  his  or  her 
forces  while  en  route  to  a  crisis  area.  Near-term  technical  solutions 
will  allow  our  joint  team  to  keep  situational  awareness  on  the  bat- 
tlefield while  converging  from  dispersed  bases. 

Most  importantly,  they  will  allow  the  commander  to  employ 
forces  without  sectors  or  deconfliction  measures,  as  we  have  used 
in  the  past.  Joint  Forces  Command's  efforts  in  this  area  will  help 
us  ensure  that  the  operational  concepts  and  technical  command 
and  control  solutions  that  we  develop  are,  in  effect,  born  joint. 

Our  emerging  command  and  control,  communications,  computers, 
intelligence,  surveillance,  and  requirements  capabilities  must  allow 
the  services  to  rapidly  and  repeatedly  plug  into  each  others'  infor- 
mation networks  and  then  play  or  operate  as  one  joint  team.  As 
such,  future  weapons  systems  and  delivery  platforms  must  be 
weighted  towards  what  they  bring  to  the  joint  war  fighting  team. 

Our  approach  to  improving  our  command  and  control  networks 
reflects  our  larger  approach  to  upgrade  our  forces  in  general.  We 
must  continue  to  balance  near-term  recapitalization  modernization 
with  long-term  investments  to  truly  transform  the  force  for  the  fu- 
ture. 

In  the  first  case,  we  are  ensuring  our  joint  team  is  as  capable  as 
possible  for  today's  mission.  In  the  second  case,  we  are  ensuring  we 


13 

are  relevant  to  dominate  a  range  of  military  operations  for  tomor- 
row. 

With  your  support,  we  can  ensure  our  men  and  women  in  uni- 
form have  the  best  tools  and  technologies  possible.  Investments  in 
hardware  are  only  part  of  our  task  to  keep  the  forces  ready;  to 
meet  these  challenges,  we  must  continue  to  invest  in  our  people 
and  in  their  skills.  Your  commitment  to  improving  joint  profes- 
sional military  education,  will  be  one  way  to  ensure  our  warfighters 
have  the  intellectual  foundation  to  meet  the  unknown  challenges 
that  we  will  face.  Your  support  to  fund  the  training  and  to  equip 
our  troops  with  the  most  capable  systems  sends  a  powerful  mes- 
sage of  support. 

You  also  demonstrate  your  commitment  by  ensuring  they  have 
the  quality  of  life  that  they  deserve.  In  terms  of  pay,  and  housing, 
and  medical  care,  you  and  the  administration  have  made  quality- 
of-life  initiatives  a  top  priority. 

Our  world-class  troops  deserve  first-class  support.  You  have  al- 
ways been  there  for  them,  and  on  their  behalf,  I  thank  you  for  your 
continued  support. 

This  past  year  I  have  had  the  opportunity  to  visit  with  these 
brave  Americans  in  every  theater.  They  are  committed  to  protect- 
ing our  Nation  and  our  interests  around  the  world.  I  am  always 
struck  by  their  sense  of  duty  and  their  sense  of  dedication;  their 
sacrifices  and  selfless  character  are  an  inspiration  to  all  of  us. 

And  I  am  really  proud  to  serve  with  them,  and  it  is  an  honor  to 
represent  them  every  day. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  thank  you  again  for  the  opportunity  to  be  here 
today,  and  look  forward  to  your  questions. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you.  General  Myers. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  General  Myers  can  be  found  in  the 
Appendix  on  page  89.] 

The  Chairman.  The  gentleman  from  Missouri,  Mr.  Skelton. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  one  question. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  long  been  concerned,  and  I  know  others 
have,  as  well,  that  North  Korea  might  take  the  opportunity  pre- 
sented by  U.S.  engagement  in  Iraq  to  engage  in  conflict  with  Amer- 
ican and  South  Korean  forces. 

What  preparations  are  being  made  to  cover  both  areas  militarily? 
North  Korea  must  be  left  with  no  doubt  of  our  ability  to  act  simul- 
taneously in  both  places. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Congressman  Skelton,  I  agree  completely 
with  that  statement.  The  situation  in  North  Korea  is  a  dangerous 
one.  The  behavior  of  the  North  Korean  government  is,  over  time, 
from  time  to  time,  threatening.  It  poses — given  its  military  capa- 
bilities, it  poses  a  threat  to  our  forces  as  well  as  the  South  Korean 
forces  and  has  for  decades. 

In  addition,  today,  with  their  nuclear  program,  they  pose  a  new 
threat,  that  of  not  simply  having  what  is  assessed  to  be  at  the 
present  time  one  or  two  nuclear  weapons,  but  also  the  threat  of  de- 
veloping nuclear  terms  in  a  relatively  short  period  of  time  to  make 
another  six  to  eight  weapons,  which  they  then,  of  course,  could  sell, 
as  they  sell  ballistic  missile  technologies  to  terrorist  states  or  ter- 
rorist organizations. 


14 

What  we  need  to  do  is  what  we  have  been  doing  and  doing  well 
over  the  decades,  and  that  is  to  work  with  the  South  Korean  gov- 
ernment, and  to  see  that  the  deterrent — we  have  the  capability  to 
deter  and  defend  in  that  part  of  the  world. 

Our  forces  are  arranged  around  the  world,  not  in  a  threatening 
way,  but  in  a  way  that  demonstrates  to  the  world  that  we  do  in 
fact  have  the  capability  of  dealing  in  more  than  one  theater  at  a 
time.  And  we  will  see  that  that  continues  to  be  the  case. 

General  Myers.  Can  I  add  on  to  that,  Mr.  Secretary? 

Congressman  Skelton,  from  a  pure  military  point  of  view,  and 
from  the  Secretary's  point  of  view,  as  well,  fundamental  to  our  de- 
fense strategy  is  the  ability  to  do  more  than  one  thing  at  a  time; 
and  I  know  you  are  well  aware  of  that.  And  so,  two  major  events 
happening  nearly  simultaneously  is  a  situation  that  we  plan  for. 

So  it  is  fundamental  to  our  planning,  it  is  fundamental  in  our 
force  structure,  and  I  agree  with  everjdhing  the  Secretary  said.  I 
don't  think  we  should  leave  any  doubt  in  anybody's  mind  that  the 
American  military  is  ready  for  whatever  contingency  might  arise. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  The  point  you  make  is  an  important  one, 
because  we  have  to  be  sensitive.  To  the  point  the  world  thinks  the 
United  States  is  focused  on  the  problems  in  Iraq,  it  is  conceivable 
that  someone  could  make  a  mistake  and  believe  that  that  is  an  op- 
portunity for  them  to  make-  to  take  an  action  which  they  other- 
wise would  have  avoided,  and  we  have  to  see  that  we  are  arranged, 
and  it  is  clear  to  the  world  that  that  is — it  will  not  be  an  opportune 
time. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  chairman  of  the  air- 
land subcommittee,  Mr.  Weldon. 

Mr.  Weldon.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  thank  all  three  of  you 
for  coming  in  today.  And  thank  you  for  your  service  to  the  country. 
I  am  not  going  to  talk  about  the  threats  that  we  are  facing  right 
now,  because  I  am  sure  my  colleagues  will;  and  I  have  total  and 
complete  confidence  in  the  leadership  you  have  all  provided  to  our 
services. 

I  want  to  talk,  however,  about  the  funding  shortfall  that  this 
committee  continues  to  try  to  address,  working  in  cooperation  with 
you.  Last  year,  we  had  $24.5  billion  of  unfunded  priorities  that 
were  given  to  us  by  the  service  chiefs,  and  we  tried  our  best  and 
did  maneuvering  as  best  we  could.  And  I  think  the  final  outcome 
was  that  we  were  able  to  authorize  maybe  half  of  that,  maybe 
slightly  more  than  half  of  that  even.  All  of  that  didn't  get  appro- 
priated. 

And  this  has  been  a  pattern  that  has  been  continuing  for  more 
than  a  decade.  We  are  continuing  to  see  our  shipbuilding  accounts, 
even  though  they  were  increased  in  this  year's  budget,  not  be  what 
they  should  be,  our  tactical  fighters;  we  don't  have  enough  money 
to  fund  the  programs  coming  on  line,  our  helicopter  programs  and 
ammunition  and  a  whole  host  of  other  activities. 

So  it  behooves  us  not  to  just  fight  for  a  bigger  top-line  number 
which  you  have  given  the  leadership  for  this  year  to  follow,  but  in 
identifying  those  areas  where  we  can  free  up  money,  where  we  can 
save  money  that  could  go  for  these  other  priorities. 


15 

I  want  to  talk  about  two  specific  areas  where  you  provided  lead- 
ership last  year,  Mr.  Secretary,  but  which  we  have  to  renew  our 
efforts  this  year. 

The  first  is  the  privatization  of  our  military  housing.  I  know  you 
are  interested  in  this  concept,  because  I  have  had  a  number  of  dis- 
cussions with  you.  The  private  sector  organizations  in  America  who 
do  housing  for  our  universities  and  colleges  have  said  on  the  record 
that  they  could  see  over  a  5-to- 10-year  period  an  investment  of  $60 
to  $80  billion  in  private  money  to  redo  the  bulk  of  our  base  housing 
around  the  country. 

That  would  be  no  cost  to  our  defense  budget,  and  yet  it  would 
be  a  significant  economic  stimulus,  especially  to  those  municipali- 
ties where  that  construction  would  take  place.  And  it  would  also 
free  up  money  in  our  military  construction  (MILCON)  budget,  so 
instead  of  having  to  apply  money  into  the  traditional  approach  of 
using  MILCON  dollars  for  base  housing,  we  could  do  it  with  pri- 
vate sector  funding. 

Mr.  Secretary,  the  Army,  I  think,  has  done  a  fantastic  job  in  this 
area,  and  I  want  to  praise  the  Army  publicly.  I  would  also  say,  in 
my  opinion,  the  worst  service  has  been  the  Air  Force  in  terms  of 
not  following  through  on  the  privatization.  There  is  no  standard 
process  for  all  of  the  services;  and  I  would  ask  you  to,  number  one, 
when  I  finish  my  second  part,  comment  on  your  privatization  prior- 
ities for  this  session  of  Congress  and  especially  this  year.  I  think 
it  could  be  a  real  plus  for  us  in  terms  of  overall  resource  allocation 
needs. 

The  second  area  deals  with  the  environmental  requirements  that 
are  imposed  in  the  military.  Now,  I  will  take  a  back  seat  to  no  one 
on  environmental  legislation  and  the  support  of  the  Clean  Water, 
Clean  Air  and  Endangered  Species,  and  every  other  major  act  that 
we  have  passed  in  the  Congress.  I  am  proud  to  be  the  only  Repub- 
lican on  the  Migratory  Bird  Commission. 

But  we  faced  a  huge  battle  that,  in  my  opinion,  got  totally 
skewed  by  the  more  radical  environmental  groups  to  somehow  por- 
tray to  the  American  people  that  you  and  we  wanted  to  destroy  the 
environmental  laws  of  this  country.  I  am  still  getting  e-mails;  I  am 
sure  my  colleagues  are,  as  well,  sa3dng,  "Don't  let  the  Pentagon 
trample  on  our  fragile  environment."  I  don't  want  to  do  that,  and 
I  know  you  don't  want  to  do  that. 

And  the  whole  battle  over  the  Migratory  Bird  Act  was  not  to 
trample  on  migratory  birds,  but  simply  to  allow  the  Pentagon  to 
apply  some  common  sense  to  allow  us  to  be  able  to  train  properly. 
Ajiyone  that  has  been  out  to  Camp  Pendleton  and  seen  the  bulk 
of  our  training  site  for  the  amphibious  training  of  our  Marines  and 
realized  that  80  percent  of  that  land  area  is  set  aside  because  of 
one  or  more  endangered  species  understands  this  is  not  just  a  prob- 
lem in  training,  it  is  also  a  cost  problem. 

So  those  are  two  areas  where  I  think  we  can  be  especially  helpful 
to  you. 

Would  you  please  reiterate  your  position  on  those,  and  would  you 
also  answer  for  the  record,  Mr.  Secretary,  is  it  your  intent  to  de- 
stroy the  environmental  laws  of  this  country,  and  do  you  support 
the  trampling  of  the  Endangered  Species  Act  as  the  more  liberal 
wing  of  the — not  the  Democratic  Party,  because  a  lot  of  Democrats 


16 

are  with  us  on  this — of  the  environmental  movement,  who  have 
tried  to  portray  our  efforts  to  simply  bring  some  common  sense  to 
the  way  we  allow  the  military  to  deal  with  the  preservation  of  the 
environment,  which  I  think  no  other  agency  in  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment has  done  as  much,  that  is,  to  preserve  the  environment,  the 
work  being  done  on  our  military  bases  by  our  military  leaders. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Mr.  Congressman,  I  thank  you  very  much. 
There  is  no  question,  but  that  the  Department  has  been  and  is  now 
and  will  be  in  the  future  sensitive  to  the  environment.  We  do  ev- 
erything within  reason  to  try  to  see  that  we  protect  the  environ- 
ment. We  do  have  a  great  deal  of  land,  and  there  is  no  question, 
but  that  there  are  environmental  interests  and  concerns  that  are 
perfectly  legitimate. 

As  you  know,  last  year,  as  you  pointed  out,  we  came  before  the 
Congress  and  indicated  that  we  had  eight  provisions  that  we  need- 
ed to  assure  that  we  had  the  proper  readiness  and  range  preserva- 
tion. We  got,  as  I  recall,  parts  of  three,  and  none  of  the  remaining 
five. 

We  will  be  back  before  you.  I  hate  to  put  folks  through  that 
again,  because  there  is  no  question  there  are  people  who  oppose  it, 
but  we  believe  very  deeply  that  the  remaining  five  are  important. 
And  we  appreciate  the  support  of  those  who  have  provided  it. 

With  respect  to  housing,  we  are  making  progress.  As  I  recall,  we 
have  gone  from  something  like  180,000  substandard  or  inadequate 
units  down  to  something  like  100,000  by  the  end  of  2004.  In  fiscal 
year  2003,  we  had  $240  million  in  family  housing  privatization  that 
provided  for  30,238  units.  In  the  2004  budget,  it  is  increased  to 
$346  million  for  36,262  new  units. 

You  are  right.  The  Air  Force  is  the  one  service  that,  it  appears 
in  the  current  forward-year  Defense  plan,  will  not  get  down  to  our 
target  during  that  period  of  2004  to  2009. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  It  is  actually  2004  to  2007.  There  are  four  bases 
that  the  Air  Force  will  not  have  completed  by  2007.  They  will  be 
completed  inside  the  United  States  by  2008.  Then  there  are  some 
overseas  facilities  that  will  be  completed  by  2009.  That  would  bring 
us  to  100  percent. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  have  seen  some  of  this  housing  that  is 
being  developed  as  a  result  of  the  privatization  effort.  It  is  excel- 
lent, there  is  just  no  question  about  it.  But  the  leverage  of  using 
private  funds  is  something  that  is  going  to  enable  us  to  accelerate 
this  process  in  a  very  important  way. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  If  I  could  add,  Mr.  Secretary,  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
leverage  is  actually  about  $8  for  every  dollar  that  we  invest.  In 
other  words,  the  taxpayer  is  getting  $8  worth  of  value  for  a  dollar 
invested  by  the  government  in  privatized  housing.  That  means  that 
we  are  spending  upwards  of  $2.5  billion  equivalent,  but  actually 
costing  the  taxpayer  $350  million,  give  or  take.  It  is  a  great  deal 
for  the  taxpayer. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Spratt. 

Mr.  Spratt.  Mr.  Secretary,  General  Myers,  thank  you  very  much 
for  your  fine  testimony  and  for  your  service. 

I  am  curious  as  to  why  you  didn't  include  in  the  budget  some 
item  for  Afghanistan  and  some  identification  of  an  increment  for 


17 

the  war  on  terror.  We  are  in  our  third  year  of  that  endeavor,  and 
it  would  probably  help  you,  from  a  marketing  standpoint,  if  you 
could  break  it  out  and  tell  us  what  it  is;  and  it  would  be  useful  to 
us  from  an  oversight  standpoint  if  we  knew  what  the  extra  cost 
was. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Yes,  sir.  I  am  happy  to  respond. 

Last  year  we  did  that,  and  the  Congress  rejected  it.  This  year  we 
said,  well,  what  can  we  do?  So  we  know  that  the  Global  War  on 
Terrorism  is  going  to  be  going  on.  It  is  going  to  take  a  good,  long 
time,  I  am  afraid.  We  knew  that  last  year  when  we  asked  for  the 
money  and  the  Congress  said,  well,  you  don't  know  precisely  what 
the  money  is  going  to  be  spent  for,  when  in  fact  we  knew  we  had 
to  spend  it  for  force  protection,  we  had  to  spend  it  for  combat  air 
patrols  over  the  United  States  of  America,  we  had  to  spend  it  for 
Afghanistan.  We  are  using  training  and  equipment  in  Georgia,  in 
Yemen,  and  in  the  Philippines,  some  various  military-to-military 
relationship  activities. 

This  year  what  we  said  was,  do  we  go  back  up  there  and  try 
again  and  have  it  then  be  not  approved  and  used  for  other  pur- 
poses, which  is  what  is  happening  to  the  $10  billion  that  some  have 
set  aside — thought  they  set  aside  for  the  Department  of  Defense; 
or  do  we  just  go  up  and  say  the  facts  are  we  are  spending  about 
a  billion-five  a  month,  a  billion-six  for  the  Global  War  on  Terror- 
ism, excluding  Iraq.  And  we  have  been  doing  that,  if  you  average 
it  out,  probably  out  over  the  October-November-December-January 
period. 

Mr.  Spratt.  Do  you  propose  that  that  come  out  of  what  you  have 
allocated  here,  or  do  you  have  in  mind  a  supplemental  to  fund  it 
later  in  the  year? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Let  me  just  finish  the  thought. 

The  second  is,  we  figure  we  have  spent  about  2.1  billion  already 
for  the  Iraq  force  flow  that  has  taken  place  that  is  related  to  sup- 
porting the  diplomacy.  In  each  case,  as  I  said  in  my  testimony,  they 
are  not  in  this  budget.  We  are  going  to  have  to  come  to  you  for  a 
supplemental.  The  longer  it  takes  to  get  the  supplemental  up  and 
to  get  the  supplemental  approved,  the  more  we  will  be  pulling 
money  out  of  other  pots  to  fund  the  immediate  expenses;  and  then, 
ultimately,  we  hope  we  will  get  approval  for  a  supplemental. 

Mr.  Spratt.  So  in  addition  to  a  potential  war  in  Iraq,  there  will 
be,  very  probably,  a  supplemental  to  fund  the  incremental  cost  of 
the  operations  in  Afghanistan,  and  elsewhere  related  to  the  war  on 
terror? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  It  is  not  just  Afghanistan,  it  is  the  Global 
War  on  Terror. 

Mr.  Spratt.  I  understand  that. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  You  are  correct.  We  must  have  that. 

Mr.  Spratt.  You  mention  in  your  budget  testimony  somewhere 
that  you  provided  $7.9  billion  for  homeland  defense  next  year  and 
55  over  the  Future  Year  Defense  Program  (FYDP).  Can  you  tell  us 
as  much  as  you  can  in  open  session,  number  one,  is  that  new 
money  or  simply  reidentification  of  old  money;  and  number  two, 
what  are  you  doing  differently  with  that  sum  of  money? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  we  would  be  happy  to.  The  first  thing 
I  should  do,  I  think,  is  make  sure  everyone  understands  that  that 


18 

number  is  very  soft.  There  are  a  lot  of  ways  you  can  characterize 
whether  or  not  a  dollar  spent  is  or  is  not  involved  with  homeland 
security,  and  it  is  a  very  difficult  thing. 

I  believe  that  number  is  the  result,  not  of  the  Department  of  De- 
fense's formula  for  what  we  spend  on  homeland  security,  but  rather 
the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget's  formula;  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  In  effect.  There  are  a  couple  of  different  categories 
that  0MB  uses,  as  you  probably  know,  Mr.  Spratt.  One  of  them  is 
called  overseas  combating  terrorism,  that  addresses  combating  ter- 
rorism activities 

Mr.  Spratt.  Is  this  new  money,  a  new  effort? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  No,  this  is  money  in  our  budget.  It  is  new  budget 
money,  but  it  is  identified  by  0MB  as  such.  These  are  programs 
that  we  are  conducting,  and  therefore,  that — it  can  be  construed 
that  way.  But  as  the  Secretary  pointed  out,  everything  we  spend 
is  to  defend  the  United  States. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  The  money  we  spend  all  over  the  globe  is 
designed  not  to  protect  the  globe  as  much  as  it  is  to  protect  the 
United  States.  So,  it  is  a  very  difficult  thing  to  do.  But  in  that 
number  would  be  the — the  cost,  for  example,  of  the  combat  air  pa- 
trols over  the  United  States,  the  force  protection  that  we  have  to 
provide  in  this  country  because  of  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism, 
those  types  of  things. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Those  types  of  things,  special  operations 
activities  that  may  involve  a  ship  that  comes  in  to  the  port  and 
shows  an  unusual  radiation  and  has  to  be  looked  at;  all  of  those 
types  of  things  that  when  you  add  them  up  come  out  to  that. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Now  let  me  just  clarify  it  for  you.  If  you  are  looking 
at  one  of  those  six  transformation  categories,  that  is  our  listing  and 
that  would  include  things  like  missile  defense,  so  there  is  a  little 
bit  of  overlap  and  perhaps  some  confusion.  And  then  there  is  the 
way  0MB  categorizes  it. 

Mr.  Spratt.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

The  gentleman  who  chairs  the  Subcommittee  on  Terrorism  and 
Unconventional  Threats  and  Capabilities,  Mr.  Saxton. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  two  questions  actually.  One  has  to  do  with 
command  structure  and  the  other  one  with  force  structure.  With 
regard  to  the  command  structure  question  related  to  special  oper- 
ations forces,  in  your — in  the  slide  that  you  provided  us  on  special 
operations  forces,  there  is  a  bullet  point  which  reads,  add  Special 
Operations  Command  (SOCOM) — add  SOCOM  role  as  a  supported 
combat  command.  I  would  like  (a)  to  know  your  vision  as  to  how 
that  will  roll  out  and  manifest  itself. 

On  the  force  structure  question,  today  in  your  remarks  in  your 
testimony  you  referred  to  the  Reserves  and  calling  them  up  in  this 
time  of  need,  and  previously  I  heard  you  made  some  public  re- 
marks with  regard  to  Reserves  and  the  difficulty  in  getting  them 
mobilized,  and  other  matters  perhaps.  And  so,  while  it  has  been 
said  that  in  today's  world,  when  we  find  it  necessary  to  go  to  war, 
we  can't  go  very  well  without  the  Reserves.  And  at  the  same  time 
there  is  a  buzz  around  the  Pentagon  and  here  in  Congress  that  you 


19 

may  have  a  new  vision  for  the  Reserves.  And  I  would  Hke  to  ask 
you  if  you  would  share  that  vision  with  us  today. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  first,  thank  you,  Mr.  Congressman. 
First,  with  respect  to  the  role  of  the  special  operators  as  a  sup- 
ported command,  historically  they  have  been  in  a  supporting  role, 
and  a  combatant  commander  in  an  area  of  responsibility  would 
bring  the  special  operators  in  to  assist  that  combatant  commander 
in  a  function;  which  is  basically,  for  example,  what  General  Franks 
has  been  doing  in  the  Central  Command  in  Afghanistan,  to  the  ex- 
tent the  special  operators  have  been  involved — which  they  have, 
and  done  a  wonderful  job. 

Because  of  the  global  nature  of  the  war  on  terrorism  we  have 
said  that  (a)  we  want  to  increase  the  size  of  that  capability.  We 
want  to  replace  their  equipment  and  we  have  put  a  good  deal  of 
money  in  the  budget,  to  plus-up  to  see  that  we  do  that.  And  third, 
we  want  to  migrate  them  into  a  situation  where  they  are  not  only 
in  a  supporting  role  to  an  area-of-responsibility  commander,  but 
they  are  in  a  supported  role,  meaning  that  they  would,  in  fact,  plan 
and  execute  an  operation  and  to  the  extent  they  needed  assistance 
from  other  commands,  they  would  receive  that  assistance  and  the 
command  would  be  the  supporting  command. 

We  have  not  executed  anything  in  that  regard  at  the  present 
time.  They  are  being  staffed  up  to  do  that.  We  need  the  funds  in 
this  budget  to  enable  them  to  do  that.  But  as  General  Myers  and 
all  of  us  looked  at  the  world,  it  became  rather  clear  that  we  needed 
this  strength  and  capability. 

Dick. 

General  Myers.  Yeah.  As  the  Secretary  and  I  looked  at  this 
problem  along  with  the  other  combatant  commanders  and  the  serv- 
ice chiefs,  with  the  war  on  terrorism  we  have  a  global  problem;  but 
nobody,  none  of  the  commands,  looked  globally  at  this  problem.  The 
one  we  thought  was  best  suited  to  do  that  was  Special  Operations 
Command,  and  so  that  is  the  vision.  If  you  give  them  that  task, 
then  you  have  to  reorganize  them  slightly  and  change  their  instruc- 
tion slightly,  as  the  Secretary  explained.  But  that  is  the  vision. 

This  is  a  worldwide  threat  and  it  needs  to  be  addressed  from 
somebody  looking  with  a  world  global  view.  The  regional  commands 
are  no  less  important  than  they  were,  but  we  want  one  command 
to  look  at  this  as  a  whole. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  With  respect  to  the  second  question  on  the 
Reserves,  one  of  the  things  that  has  happened  is  as  we  have  start- 
ed these  call-ups  and  we  have  started  to  mobilize  and  deploy  people 
for  the  various  needs  around  the  country,  it  became  rather  clear 
that  in  some  skills  the  only  place  those  skills  are  located  is  in  the 
Guard  and  Reserve.  And  so,  the  question  comes  up  which  we  are 
now  addressing:  Is  that  really  the  way  we  want  to  be  arranged? 

If  we  know  that  we  are  likely  to  be  involved  in  a  variety  of  dif- 
ferent things  around  the  world — we  currently  have  Afghanistan,  we 
have  got  maritime  interception  operations,  we  have  got  training 
and  equipping  in  Georgia  and  Yemen,  and  we  have  got  activities 
in  the  Philippines.  We  have  now  force  flow  with  respect  to  Iraq. 
Ought  we  not  to  have  on  active  duty  people  who  have  some  of  those 
same  skills  so  that  100  percent  of  a  particular  skill  or  need  is  not 
in  the  Guard  or  Reserve? 


20 

Now,  the  reason  I  say  that  as  a  hkely  prospect  is  this:  The  Guard 
and  Reserve  are  fantastic  and  they  are  serving  our  country  so  won- 
derfully today  and  they  are  doing  it  with  high  morale  and  a  readi- 
ness to  serve.  But  I  think  to  maintain  effective  Guard  and  Reserve, 
we  are  going  to  have  to  be  respectful  of  their  employers  and  we  are 
going  to  have  to  be  respectful  of  them.  And  we  need  to  make  sure 
that  we  don't  continuously  call  those  kinds  of  people  up.  And  un- 
less we  have  some  of  those  skills  on  active  duty,  we  are  forced  to 
keep  calling  them  up.  That  is  one  of  the  elements. 

There  are  other  thoughts  that  Dr.  David  Chu  and  others  in  the 
Department  are  considering,  but  we  have  reached  no  conclusions 
about  how  we  might  want  to  adjust  the  Guard  and  Reserve  at  this 
time;  and  as  we  get  our  thinking  together,  we  obviously  would  be 
back  in  touch  with  the  Congress. 

Mr.  Saxton.  If  I  may  just  conclude,  Mr.  Secretary,  if  you  would 
be  kind  enough  to  keep  us  engaged  in  that  process  along  the  way 
it  would  be  extremely  helpful. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  we  would  be  happy  to  do  it.  And  what 
the — you  and  your  specific  responsibilities  might  want  to  do  is  to 
arrange  for  kind  of  a  3  or  3  months'  update  from  David  Chu  and 
we  can  set  that  up  any  time  you  would  like. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  from  Mis- 
sissippi, Mr.  Taylor. 

Mr.  Taylor.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Secretary  and  Gen- 
eral Myers. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  am  obviously  pleased  that  you  have  decided  to 
increase  the  shipbuilding  budget.  But  I  have  got  to  admit  some 
concern.  Last  year  when  Admiral  Clark  came  and  spoke  to  us,  he 
said  that  the  fleet  should  be  a  minimum  of  375  ships.  By  your  esti- 
mate we  will  go  to  a  fleet  of  301  ships.  And  considering  a  30-year 
life  span  of  those  seven  ships  that  you  will  put  in  the  budget  this 
year,  you  are  looking  then  at  a  fleet  of  210  if  you  continue  this  leg- 
acy. I  don't  think  it  gets  us  there. 

I  don't  think  the  world  has  shrunk  any.  I  don't  think  it  is  going 
to  be  easier  for  us  to  have  basing  on  other  people's  soil.  I  think  it 
is  going  to  be  more  difficult  for  us  to  do  so.  I  think  the  way  to  make 
up  for  that  is  with  the  sea-based  platform.  I  am  just  curious.  At 
what  point  do  you  intend  to  turn  that  around?  Because  2009  seems 
a  heck  of  a  long  ways  away. 

The  other  thing  I  would  like  to  point  out.  General  Myers,  I  no- 
ticed in  your  testimony  you  mentioned  the  Cano  Limon  pipeline. 
Just  a  minute  ago  I  heard  the  Secretary  say  that  every  dollar  in 
the  defense  budget  goes  to  protect  Americans.  I  have  got  a  little 
trouble — no,  I  have  got  a  lot  of  trouble  spending  96  million  Amer- 
ican taxpayer  dollars  protecting  a  pipeline  that  is  owned  by  Occi- 
dental Petroleum  through  which  Colombian  National  Oil  Company 
oil  flows,  both  of  which  had  record  profits  last  year,  and  now  with 
some  recent  changes  being  protected  by  approximately  200  mem- 
bers of  the  United  States  special  forces.  Given  what  you  just  said, 
I  would  like  a  better  explanation  of  how  that  somehow  is  in  Ameri- 
ca's interest,  given  that  it  seems  a  very  small  percentage  of  that 
oil  ends  up  in  American  refineries. 


21 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  With  respect  to  the  shipbuilding  portion  of 
the  question,  you  are  right.  The  number  of  ships  is  going  to  dip 
down  to  a  low  of  291  in  '06  and  be  above  where  we  are  today  by 
'09.  And  but  one  should  look  at  a  couple  of  things.  First,  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Navy  reported  to  Congress  that  the  risk  associated 
with  those  lower  numbers  of  surface  combatants  is  acceptable  be- 
cause the  ships  that  are  replacing  the  ones  that  are  being  retired 
are  more  capable  ships.  So  if  one  looks  not  simply  at  numbers,  but 
at  capabilities  and  lethality,  I  think  he  is  correct,  the  Chief  of 
Naval  Operations. 

Second,  we  are — I  forget  where  we  are  in  this  work  that  is  being 
done  by  the  Navy  and  by  others  in  terms  of  determining  the  kinds 
of  ships  that  are  appropriate.  But  you  are  absolutely  right.  Basing 
access  is  going  to  be  less  attractive  over  the  decades,  I  would  as- 
sume, rather  than  more  attractive,  and  clearly  having  those  plat- 
forms is  critically  important.  And  the  question  is:  How  might  they 
be  used?  And  I  know  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  and  the  acting  Sec- 
retary and  the  Chief  of  Naval  Operations  will  be  up  here  to  talk 
about  that  with  you. 

But,  I  mean,  at  the  moment,  anticipating  a  major  naval  battle 
in  the  world  is  a  hard  thing  to  do.  We  need  our  Navy,  as  you  said, 
for — to  dissuade  anyone  from  thinking  they  could  develop  a  navy 
that  could  compete  with  ours.  We  need  it  to  provide  access  across 
the  globe.  And  we  need  it,  as  you  suggest,  because  there  will  be  dif- 
ficulties in  finding  ground-based  platforms  in  some  cases.  We  are 
in  the  process  of  fashioning  what  is  required,  but  I  would — the  only 
thing  I  would  say  is — we  are  anxious  to  get  that  number  up  and 
we  are  anxious  to  reduce  the  age  of  the  fleet,  and  we  will  be  coming 
back  to  the  Congress  with  proposals  to  do  that.  But  I  think  it  is 
important  to  look  at  the  capability  of  the  fleet  as  well  as  just  num- 
bers. Do  you  want  to  comment? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Certainly.  Mr.  Taylor,  first  of  all,  as  you  know,  last 
year  you  were  very  concerned  as  well  about  the  numbers,  and  the 
Secretary  said  we  would  get  those  numbers  up,  and  we  did.  And 
what  is  significant  about  this  plan  is  that  it  never  drops  below 
seven.  That  is  not  a  trivial  matter  considering  where  we  were  not 
too  long  ago. 

Second  of  all,  the  jump  in  the  numbers  is  actually  probably  a  lot 
more  realistic  than  you  might  think,  simply  because  that  is  related 
to  the  new  ship  we  are  developing,  the  Littoral  Combat  Ship  which 
is  geared  to  the  kinds  of  missions  the  Secretary  was  talking  about: 
New  missions  for  the  21st  century  against  mining  warfare  units, 
against  diesel  submarines  and  other  such.  These  are  going  to  be 
less  expensive  ships.  We  can  buy  more  of  them.  There  were  four 
of  them  in  '09  and  we  start  in  '05.  So,  this  is  a  program  that  will 
be  starting  and  will  be  ramping  up  and  there  is  R&D  money  for 
it  today. 

And  then  there  are  the  studies  the  Secretary  mentioned,  looking 
at  our  various  capabilities  both  in  terms  of  forcible  entry  capabili- 
ties and  undersea  capabilities  that  we  are  just  starting  up  and  that 
will  give  better  definition  to  the  kind  of  forces  we  are  going  to  need 
in  the  future  years. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Do  you  want  to  answer  the  pipeline? 


22 

General  Myers.  You  bet.  Yes,  Congressman  Taylor.  I  think  the 
last  part  of  your  question  was  what  is  in  America's  interest  in  Co- 
lombia that  would  dictate  this  sort  of  effort? 

Mr.  Taylor.  If  I  recall,  General,  the  statement  was  made  that 
every  dollar  in  this  defense  budget  goes  for  America's  defense. 

General  Myers.  You  bet. 

Mr.  Taylor.  I  would  like  you  to  tell  me  how  that  96  million,  plus 
the  expenses  of  having  approximately  200  special  forces  down 
there 

General  Myers.  Clearly  we  have  a  plan  to  help  train  and  in 
some  cases  equip  Colombian  forces,  and  the  reason  that  is  impor- 
tant is  because  Colombia's  democracy  is  under  threat  and  it  is 
under  threat  from  insurgents.  It  turns  out  that  these  terrorists  or 
insurgents  are  also  connected  to  drugs,  which  is  a  powerful  nexus 
if  you  think  about  terrorist  drug  money  and  the  ability  to  do  harm 
in  the  world. 

So,  I  think  there  are  a  couple  of  reasons  it  is  important  to  Amer- 
ican security.  First  of  all,  Colombia  is  a  democracy,  but  it  is  under 
threat.  And  President  Uribe  has  a  very  aggressive  strategy  to  deal 
with  that.  It  is  a  strategy  that  we  as  the  United  States  helped  him 
develop,  and  we  are  committed,  I  think,  in  terms  of  the  military, 
to  help  train  and  equip  his  forces  to  deal  with  that  insurgency. 

And  then  second,  as  it  relates  to  the  drug  piece  of  this,  and  drug 
money  funneling  into  terrorist  organizations,  I  think  that  is  impor- 
tant to  our  security,  as  well.  And  it  is  not  just  Colombia.  It  is  the 
whole  Andean  region  or,  for  that  matter,  could  probably  have  some 
effect  if  Colombia  were  to — the  democracy  there  were  to  fail  for 
some  reason  or  the  country  were  to  fail,  it  would  have  a  dramatic 
impact  on  the  countries  in  the  surrounding  region,  perhaps  all  of 
the  continent.  And  so  for  that  reason  I  think  it  is  very  important 
to  our  security. 

Mr.  Taylor.  General,  I  hope  we  can  have — my  time  is  up.  I  hope 
we  can  have  this  discussion  at  some  other  time.  I  would  remind 
you  that  we  have  already  committed  over  a  billion  to  the  war  on 
drugs  in  Colombia,  a  separate  line  item. 

General  Myers.  Yes,  sir.  Be  happy  to  do  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  who 
chairs  the  Subcommittee  on  the  Total  Force,  Mr.  McHugh. 

Mr.  McHuGH.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Gentlemen  let  me 
begin  by  saying,  as  my  other  colleagues  did,  how  much  we  all  ap- 
preciate your  service  and  particularly  your  leadership  in  what  we 
recognize  are  very  difficult  times.  As  the  Chairman  said  in  his 
opening  statement,  many  of  us  are  very,  very  pleased,  if  not 
thrilled,  with  the  new  choices  we  have  to  make,  choices  that  at 
least  are  heading  us  in  the  right  direction  and  a  reversal  of  where 
we  found  ourselves  in  terms  of  military  budgeting  and  military 
strategy  in  the  not  so  distant  past,  and  it  is  a  pleasant  change  in- 
deed. 

And  certainly,  one  of  the  things  as  I  sat  here  and  listened  to  the 
comment  of  my  colleagues  and  the  comments  that  you  made,  that 
you  have  difficult  choices  in  every  budget,  and  I  think  clearly  we 
would  all  like  to  see  the  opportunity  to  do  more  in  every  category 
and  I  am  sure  you  would  as  well. 


23 

But  with  respect  to  the  subcommittee  duties  I  have,  I  did  want 
to  follow  through  on  a  point  that  my  next-door  seat  mate  and  my 
friend  from  New  Jersey  brought  up,  and  that  is  the  issue  of  Guard 
and  Reserve,  but  I  would  like  to  take  it  to  a  somewhat  broader  con- 
text. 

You  heard  Mr.  Skelton,  and  I  know  you  understand  others 
amongst  us  are  very  concerned  about  the  overall  question  of  end 
strength.  Do  we  have  sufficient  men  and  women  in  uniform  in  both 
the  active  and  the  Guard  and  Reserve  to  sensibly  and  humanely, 
in  terms  of  their  lives,  carry  forward  with  all  that  we  are  asking 
them  to  take  up  and  all  that  we  are  likely  to  ask  them  to  take  up? 
And,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  know  you  have  got  a  net  zero  policy  in  place 
with  respect  to  end  strength  levels.  Pardon  me.  I  know,  as  well  as 
you  have  mentioned,  you  currently  are  undergoing  a  reevaluation 
of  the  distribution  of  job  categories  between  the  active  and  the 
Guard  and  Reserve  components  and,  as  well,  are  very — I  think, 
rightfully,  studying  the  issue  of  moving  nonessential  military  jobs 
away  from  military  people  so  that  those  kinds  of  jobs  could  be  filled 
by  others,  and  the  military  people  would  be  freed  up  to  do  the  work 
of  regular  military.  And  I  think  that  is  a  very  sensible  thing. 

What  does  concern  me,  however,  is  that  in  the  meantime,  we  are 
still  held  at  an  end  strength  number  that  I  question  is  sufficient 
and  sustainable.  A  number  of  my  colleagues  and  I  visited  Guard 
and  Reserve  troops  over  the  ten-day  period  just  last  week  through- 
out the  European  Theater  at  Ramstein,  Sigonella,  Naples,  Vicenza, 
and  to  a  person,  every  one  of  these  Guard  and  Reserve  individuals 
were  questioning  their  willingness  to  re-up  and  were  questioning 
the  sustainability  of  the  call-ups  that  they  had  all  experienced. 
Every  single  one,  multiple  call-ups  in  the  past  several  years.  And 
by  the  way,  these  were  all  volunteers. 

So  if  you  look  at  that  kind  of  pressure,  if  you  look  at  the  numbers 
of  deployments  that  are  occurring  in  the  active  Guard  and  Reserve, 
or  active  components,  and  the  likelihood  of  continued  conflict  and 
continued  projects  and  assignments,  I  am  just  wondering  where 
you  are  in  terms  of  these  reviews.  How  long  do  you  think  until  you 
have  come,  Mr.  Secretary,  to  a  final  determination  on  sufficient  end 
strength?  And,  perhaps  equally  important,  at  least  in  my  mind, 
what  kind  of  factors  do  you  think  would  justify  a  permanent  re- 
quest for  end  strength  increase? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  Mr.  Congressman,  I  do  not  know  the 
date  that  these  studies  will  be  completed,  but  I  do  know  that  we 
have  been  looking  at,  as  you  suggested,  a  variety  of  ways  of  reliev- 
ing pressure.  One  is  to  use  the  flexibility — one  is  to  go  to  volun- 
teers as  opposed  to  call-ups,  and  we  have  gotten  an  enormous  num- 
ber of  volunteers.  It  has  just  been  very  heartening  and  they  are 
pleased  to  do  it  and  proud  to  do  it,  and  their  morale  is  very  high. 
Everywhere  I  have  gone,  their  morale  is  very  high. 

We  are  moving  people,  military  people,  out  of  jobs  that  should  be 
done  by  civilians  and  we  will  come  back  and  ask  for  an  end 
strength  increase  at  any  moment  that  we  believe  it  is  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  Armed  Forces.  At  the  present  time,  we  do  not  have  evi- 
dence that  suggests  that  is  the  case.  It  is  very  difficult  to  know,  for 
example,  were  the  President  to  decide  that  we  have  to  use  force  in 
Iraq,  how  long  those  call-ups  would  last.  It  is  not  possible  to  know. 


24 

It  is  not  possible  to  know  if  that  is  going  to  take  four  days  or  four 
weeks  or  four  months.  It  isn't  going  to  take  four  years.  If  force  has 
to  be  used,  it  will  be  a — in  the  shorter  distances  rather  than  the 
longer  time  frames. 

Now,  we  are  pulling  people  down  also  from  other  activities.  We 
are  reducing  the  size  of  the  force  in  the  Sinai.  We  are  reducing  the 
sizes  of  our  forces  in  Bosnia  and  Kosovo  on  a  fairly  steady  basis. 
We  are  looking  at  other  places  around  the  world.  We  are  in  the 
process  of  reviewing  our  forces  and  how  they  are  deployed  all  over 
because,  as  you  all  know,  it  is  a  three-to-one  rotation  problem.  And 
to  the  extent  we  can  have  somebody  located  at  home,  it  is  not  a 
three-to-one  problem.  My  view  is  that  the  taxpayers  are  pajdng  all 
this  money  for  the  Department  of  Defense  so  that  it  can  be  used 
if  it  needs  to  defend  our  country.  And  a  call-up  is  a  perfectly  ac- 
ceptable thing. 

We  believe  in  the  total  force  concept,  and  the  people  who  have 
been  called  up  have  agreed  with  that  and  been  proud  to  do  it.  We 
are  meeting  our  end  strength.  We  have  improved  ourselves  on  re- 
tention, and  we  have  not  seen  any  erosion  in  the  Guard  and  Re- 
serve. And  to  keep  that  situation,  we  are  going  to  have  to  continue 
to  be  respectful  of  them  and  the  difficulties  that  can  be  imposed  if 
it  goes  too  far,  and  we  are  watching  that. 

Mr.  McHUGH.  Thank  you.  If  I  may,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  too  have 
talked  to  these  people  and  I  couldn't  agree  with  you  more  about 
their  sense  of  commitment  and  their  effectiveness.  We  did  ask  the 
commanding  officers  to  leave  the  room  and,  with  all  due  respect, 
I  think  maybe  when  the  Secretary  of  Defense  is  talking  to  them, 
they  may  not  be  as  forthcoming  with  some  of  their  concerns  as  they 
are  in  a  different  setting.  I  commend  you  for  your  vigilance  and  I 
certainly  want  to  urge  you  to  continue  to  watch,  because  I  am  very 
concerned  that  it  is  going  to  start  to  show  those  erosionary  effects. 
But  we  need  to  work  together  on  that,  and  I  promise  you  we  will. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Can  I  just  add  one  comment? 

Mr.  McHuGH.  Sure. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  When  I  have  seen  a  morale  problem,  it 
isn't  because  they  were  called  up;  it  is  because  they  aren't  being 
effectively  used  or  properly  used. 

Mr.  McHuGH.  That  is  true. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  And  what  General  Myers  and  General  Pace 
and  I  have  found  is  that  our  call-up  process,  the  alerting,  the  mobi- 
lizing, and  the  deploying  is  crude;  and  we  are  in  the  process  of 
learning  lessons  from  what  has  been  going  on,  and  we  are  going 
to  find  a  much  better  way  to  see  that  the  threads  of  all  of  these 
ways  of  doing  it  are  much  better  and  much  more  respectful  of  the 
people  that  are  being  called  up. 

Mr.  McHuGH.  Well,  you  are  absolutely  right. 

General  MYERS.  It  really  is.  This  is  an  Industrial  Age  process 
that  we  have  not  taken  to  the  Information  Technology  Age,  and  I 
think  I  can  guarantee  you  within  a  very  short  period  of  time  we 
are  going  to  try  to  turn  that  around. 

I  just  want  to  mention  one  other  thing  in  addition,  because  I  talk 
to  them,  too.  And  every  crowd  I  address,  no  matter  where  I  am  in 
the  world,  I  say,  okay,  all  the  reservists  here.  Guard  and  Reserves, 
hold  up  your  hand.  And,  you  know,  sometimes  it  is  a  half  to  a  third 


25 

of  the  audience.  And  the  one  thing  that  they  always  ask  when  I 
ask  them  what  can  we  do  to  help  your  situation  is  they  want  pre- 
dictability in  their  lives.  With  predictability,  they  can  do,  and  they 
are  willing  to  do,  almost  anything;  and  they  can,  you  know,  get  sit- 
uated with  their  employers,  they  can  get  situated  with  their  fami- 
lies and  so  forth.  And  we  are  working  very  hard.  That  is  high  on 
the  Secretary's  agenda.  It  is  high  on  the  service  chiefs'  agenda,  and 
the  joint  chiefs,  to  try  to  provide  as  much  predictability.  We  are  not 
perfect  in  this  because  of  some  of  these  Industrial  Age  tools  we 
have  to  work  with,  but  that  is  certainly  our  goal. 

Mr.  McHUGH.  I  appreciate  that  and  I  know  you  gentlemen  are 
deeply  concerned.  I  hope  nothing  I  have  said  would  suggest  other- 
wise. And  the  bottom  line,  as  I  said,  if  I  may,  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
certainly  want  to  work  with  you  in  that  effort.  It  is  a  very  impor- 
tant one.  I  know  you  share  that  objective.  Thank  you  both. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  from  Ha- 
waii, Mr.  Abercrombie. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

If  I  can  follow  up,  Mr.  Secretary,  with  the  question  that  Mr. 
McHugh  just  spoke  of,  I  don't  think  the  issue  here  is  morale  or 
whether  or  not  the  motivation  is  at  point.  The  question  here  is  the 
expectation  of  deplojnnent  and  the  impact  that  that  will  have  on 
the  question  of  end  strength  and  the  commitment  that  can  be  ex- 
pected by  those  who  have  been  called  up. 

I  have  heard  numbers,  seen  numbers,  I  haven't  done  the  addition 
myself  specifically,  but  60-plus  areas  in  which  there  is  some  kind 
of  deployment.  There  are  obviously  three  or  four  in  which  that  is 
major,  from  Colombia  to  the  Philippines  to  Afghanistan,  et  cetera, 
and  possibly  Iraq  if  that  unfortunately  moves  ahead. 

So  the  question  here  is,  what  are  you  expecting  to  have  to  put 
together  in  terms  of  budget  numbers  for  deployments  in  the  next 
year?  What  are  you  expecting  to  have  to  require  of  those  who  have 
been  called  up  in  terms  of  stop  loss  and  extension  of  tours  in  terms 
of  length?  Has  there  been  any  consideration  given  to  the  civilian 
side  of  that;  for  example,  police  officers  being  called  up,  and  for  ex- 
tended terms,  firefighters  et  cetera,  all  in  the  context  of  end 
strength? 

I  don't  doubt  for  a  moment  what  you  just  stated  with  respect  to 
the  degree  of  morale  being  exhibited,  degree  and  depth  of  commit- 
ment, and  that  should  they  be  needed  in  the  future  you  would  be 
willing  to  do  that.  But  surely  you  are  trying  to  look  forward  in  that 
and  have  some  estimations  that  you  can  give  us.  I  am  not  going 
to  hold  you  to  a  hard  and  fast  number,  but  I  think  it  is  legitimate 
for  this  committee  when  it  is  giving  budget  authorization  consider- 
ation to  take  those  questions  into  account. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Congressman  Abercrombie,  there  is  no 
question  but  that — you  mentioned  stop  losses;  that  when  people  are 
asked  to  come  on  for  a  period,  come  on  for  that  period,  and  then 
a  stop  loss  is  imposed  and  they  are  not  able  to  end  the  period  when 
they  planned,  that  that  is  unfortunate  and  we  ought  to  do  all  we 
can  to  see  that  we  bring  people  on  for  the  proper  amount  of  time 
and  see  if  we  can't  do  a  better  job  of  predicting  in  the  future. 

The  problem  of  repeat  call-ups  is  a  particularly  difficult  one,  as 
well.  I  think  people  can  understand  a  single  call-up,  but  when  they 


26 

are  called  up  and  then  get  off,  and  then  in  a  relatively  short  period 
of  time  are  called  back,  that  is  a  bit  much.  And  what  we  have  to 
do  is  to  complete  this  work  that  I  mentioned  earlier  to  see  if  we 
can't  make  sure  we  have  got  on  active  duty  people  who  expect  to 
be  on  active  duty  with  the  skills  that  in  some  cases  are  only  in  the 
Reserves,  because  the  people  that  I 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  I  understand.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Secretary,  just 
because  my  time  is  limited  and  I  appreciate  that  answer.  May  I  say 
to  you  that  this  question  is  going  to  arise  before  we  come  to  our 
conclusion  on  authorization  again,  and  my  suggestion  is  that  the 
Department  and  perhaps  General  Myers,  both,  and  to  you,  we  need 
to  have  more  of  a  definitive  idea  from  you  about  expectation  of 
costs  associated  with  deplojonents  and  the  possibility  of  end 
strength  changes  before  we  finish  this  budget.  And  I  expect  a  prop- 
er subcommittee  will  take  that  up,  okay? 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Yes,  sir.  We  have  cost  estimates  right  now 
that  we  can  provide  the  subcommittee  with  respect  to  current  de- 
ployments. That  is  not  a  difficulty  at  all. 

[The  information  referred  to  can  be  found  in  the  Appendix  begin- 
ning on  page  113.] 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Okay.  And  then  we  can  take  the  end  strength 
question.  The  second  thing  I  wanted  to  get  to — well,  two  more 
things.  I  will  try  to  go  quickly.  And  you  can  give  a  short  answer 
because,  you  know —  can  you  tell  me  how  much  you  are  putting  for- 
ward for  the  Northern  Command?  I  haven't  been  able  to  find  it  yet. 
I  know  this  is  a  question  from  me  that  is  just  totally  unexpected. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  We  will  get  that  for  you  for  the  record.  We  do  have 
a  number. 

[The  information  referred  to  can  be  found  in  the  Appendix  begin- 
ning on  page  113.] 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Okay.  Thank  you  very  much.  And  you  were 
able  to  staff  that  Northern  Command  with  people  from  the  other 
commands,  right?  And  you  still  maintain  that  they  weren't 
overstaffed.  That  is  okay.  I  just  said  that  for  an  opportunity  to  put 
the  boot  in  a  little. 

And  the  last  thing,  the  last  question  that  I  have  has  to  do  with 
the  draft.  Now,  I  know  what  your  views  are  with  respect  to  that. 
But  should  we  come  to  a  question  in  this  committee  with  regard 
to  end  strength  and  with  regard  to  the  expected  deployments  nec- 
essary to  meet  a  threat  to  the  United  States,  are  you  prepared  to 
say  now  that  you  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the  idea  of  national 
service  or  draft?  And  second,  or  concomitantly  with  that  question, 
would  you  comment  on  the  idea  of  having  women  register  for  selec- 
tive service  inasmuch  as  women  are  now  an  integral  part  of  the 
armed  services  of  the  United  States — as  differentiated  from  a  draft, 
per  se. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  First 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  As  you — so  the  context  is  there,  you  probably 
know,  or  if  you  don't,  I  want  to  say  for  the  record,  I  am  a  strong 
supporter  of  selective  service.  I  think  everybody  ought  to  register 
at  18.  And  I  think  when  I  say  everybody,  I  mean  everybody,  men 
and  women.  And  I  would  like  to  know  if  you  have  a  view  on  that 
and  then  the  question  about  the  draft. 


27 

Secretary  Rumsfeld  [continuing].  Number  one,  I  personally  be- 
lieve that  the  registration  system  is  a  good  one.  The  administration 
has  no  proposals  for  altering  it  at  the  present  time. 

With  respect  to  national  service,  it  is  something  that  is  outside 
of  the  sphere  of  the  Department  of  Defense,  and  there  are  certainly 
arguments  pro  and  con  on  that,  but  they  are  not  Defense  Depart- 
ment positions. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  If  it  is  outside  the  sphere,  would  you  rely  on 
our  judgment  then? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  think  that  you  would  find  other  commit- 
tees of  Congress  would  have  a  voice  in  that. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  With  respect  to  the  draft,  as  you  said,  you 
know  my  views.  And  this  country  does  not  need  a  compulsory  sys- 
tem to  bring  men  and  women  into  the  service  at  the  present  time, 
in  my  view. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Thank  you,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  who 
chairs  the  Subcommittee  on  Readiness  and  Military  Construction, 
Mr.  Hefley. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  And  we  appreciate  you 
all  being  here  today.  This  last  week  and  weekend  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  take  some  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization  (NATO) 
parliamentarians  out  to  Fort  Irwin  and  also  to — here  we  are,  to 
Nellis  Air  Force  Base.  And  I  think  they  all  came  away  with  the 
same  impression  that  I  did,  and  that  was  that  I  wouldn't  ever  want 
to  take  on  the  American  military,  not  just  because  we  have — we 
are  ahead  of  almost  everybody — ahead  of  everybody  in  a  techno- 
logical standpoint,  but  because  also  the  training  is  just  amazing. 
And  you  are  to  be  commended  on  that. 

One  of  the  things  I  got  to  do  out  there — and  Mr.  Gibbons  was 
with  me  when  I  did  that — the  Americans  that  were  with  the  dele- 
gation got  to  see  the  FA-22  and  it  looks  like  a  wonderful  piece  of 
equipment.  But  I  was  looking  out  on  the  flight  line  and  here  are 
all  these  F-15s — which  is  a  wonderful  fighter  plane — sitting  there, 
and  they  are  30  years  old.  And  when  we  are  struggling  with  the 
budget  and  to  do  everything  we  can  with  what  we  have,  the  ques- 
tion that  arose  in  my  mind  is  do  we  need  the  FA-22?  Or  could  we 
have  opened  the  lines  on  an  F-15  type  thing,  because  I  think  that 
is  superior  to  most  anything  anyone  else  has  for  air-to-air  combat 
at  least.  Is  the  reason  we  need  the  FA-22,  is  that  because  the 
radar  and  the  ground  defenses  have  gotten  so  much  better  that  we 
need  the  stealthiness? 

And  second,  are  you  looking  at  all  at  programs  like  the  V-22, 
which  have  had  enormous  problems,  and  I  know  the  Marine  Corps 
really  wants  that — still  wants  that.  But  is  there  any  point  where 
on  a  program  like  that,  we  just  cut  our  losses  and  say,  you  know, 
we  just  can't  afford  to  go  on  with  the  development  of  something 
like  this?  Or  do  you  have  other  programs  that  you  think — that  you 
are  suggesting  we  cut  in  order  to  put  the  money  somewhere  else? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Congressman,  the — you  mentioned,  I  be- 
lieve, the  V-22,  as  well,  there.  And  that  has  been  a  troubled  pro- 
gram, as  you  know.  The  Marines  and  the  special  operators  and  oth- 


28 

ers  believe  that  if  it  can  be  made  to  be  safe  and  operate  success- 
fully, that  it  will  bring  considerable  value  to  our  warfighting  capa- 
bilities. It  is  in  a  period  of  being  tested  and  examined.  In  the  event 
that  it  proves  not  to  be  a  successful  test,  why,  it  obviously  would 
be  terminated.  To  the  extent  it  proves  successful,  everyone  is  per- 
suaded that  it  brings  value  and  we  would  intend  to  go  forward.  I 
have  forgotten  when  the 

Dr.  Zakheim.  May. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  think  it  is  sometime  this  spring  or  sum- 
mer. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  May. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  May,  Dov  thinks  that  it  is  going  to  have 
another  period  of  examination.  With  respect  to  the  FA-22,  there  is 
no  question  but  that  you  are  right;  that  the  stealth,  the  speed,  of- 
fers capabilities  not  just  for  air-to-air  but  for  air-to-ground,  which 
are  important. 

Dick  Myers,  you  might  want  to  comment  on  it. 

General  Myers.  Yes.  Congressman  Hefley,  the  FA-22,  primarily 
air  superiority  fighter  to  replace  the  F-15  with  ground  attack  capa- 
bility like  the  F-15  eventually  developed.  The  F-15  fleet  is  a  good 
fleet  but  it  is — as  you  mentioned,  it  is  an  old  fleet.  Early  in  this 
program,  and  I  think  on  more  than  one  occasion,  we  have  looked 
at  alternatives  to  the  FA-22,  such  as  taking  the  F-15  and  totally 
modifying  it.  When  you  do  that,  you  get  a  capability  less  than  the 
FA-22  at  about  the  same  cost,  because  it  would  be  expensive. 

As  you  remember  last  year,  we  lost  an  F-15,  I  think  it  was  in 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  It  came  apart  much  like  the  shuttle  Colombia 
did.  It  disintegrated  at  supersonic  speeds  because  of  structural  fail- 
ure, because  some  of  the  structural  components  exposed  to  corro- 
sion over  time  failed.  It  is  not — the  F-15  is  not  the  world's  greatest 
air  support  machine  today.  There  are  others  that  are  superior  to 
it.  What  makes  it  superior,  of  course,  are  those  folks  that  fly  it,  the 
men  and  women  that  fly  it  and  that  maintain  it.  So  it  is  a  system 
that  is  losing  its  edge.  And  the  FA-22  brings  to  the  fight,  as  the 
Secretary  says,  the  ability  to  get  into  potential  conflict  early,  be- 
cause it  has  the  stealth,  the  maneuverability,  and  the  supercruise 
that  makes  the  newer  ground  threats  and  air  threats  a  lot  less  hos- 
tile. And  it  can  take  those  on. 

And  so  I  think  it  is — the  whole  notion  is  that  you  would  buy 
some  limited  number  of  these.  This  would  be  back  to  the  concept 
of  the  high/low  mix.  You  would  have  some  few  very  expensive  air- 
planes and  then  more  less  expensive  airplanes,  and  that  is  how  the 
mix  is  going,  and  the  FA-22  would  be  at  the  high  end. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  from  Mas- 
sachusetts, Mr.  Meehan. 

Mr.  Meehan.  Thank  you.  And  I  join  my  colleagues  in  thanking 
Secretary  Rumsfeld  and  General  Myers  for  your  service  to  this 
country  at  this  critical  time. 

Mr.  Secretary,  in  1998,  as  a  member  of  the  Project  for  the  New 
American  Century,  you  sent  a  letter  to  then-President  Clinton,  call- 
ing for  regime  change  in  Iraq  through  military  means  if  necessary. 
And  I  would  like  to  read  a  portion  of  that  letter. 


29 

"We  believe  that  the  United  States  has  the  authority  under  exist- 
ing U.S.  resolutions  to  take  the  necessary  steps,  including  military 
steps,  to  protect  our  vital  interests  in  the  Gulf.  In  any  case,  Amer- 
ican policy  cannot  continue  to  be  crippled  by  a  misguided  insistence 
on  unanimity  in  the  U.S.  Security  Council." 

Do  you  believe  that  working  through  the  United  Nations  Security 
Council  with  regard  to  disarming  Iraq  is  a  misguided  and  crippling 
policy? 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  No.  I  support  the  President's  decision  to  go 
through  the  United  Nations. 

Mr.  Meehan.  The 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  would  add,  however,  that  in  life  it  is  rare 
when  one  gets  unanimity.  It  seems  that  almost  anything  anyone 
proposes,  somebody  is  not  going  to  like.  And  so  I  think  the  process 
of  going  to  the  United  Nations  is  a  useful  thing,  has  been  a  useful 
thing.  But  I  think  that  we  probably  ought  not  to  expect  that  in  life 
that  we  are  going  to  get  unanimity. 

Mr.  Meehan.  Sure.  Mr.  Secretary,  today  in  the  Washington  Post 
it  highlighted  the  fact  that  Saddam  Hussein  has  armed  an)rwhere 
between  1  and  8  million  civilians  with  semiautomatic  rifles,  rocket 
launchers  and  other  military  weapons.  This  militia  appears  to  be 
designed  to  fight  in  cities  and  towns,  street  by  street.  What  is  being 
done  now  to  ensure  that  if  we  go  to  war  with  Iraq,  that  these  civil- 
ians will  not  take  arms  against  our  troops;  and  assuming  for  a  mo- 
ment that  our  troops  do  have  to  militarily  engage  armed  civilians 
in  the  streets  of  Baghdad,  are  there  any  plans  currently  to  use  non- 
lethal  technologies  to  kind  of  disarm  and  disperse? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Congressman,  you  are  right.  There  are  re- 
ports that  that  is  what  Saddam  Hussein  said.  That  does  not  make 
it  so.  He  announced  to  the  world  that  everything  Colin  Powell  was 
going  to  say  was  a  lie  before  he  even  knew  what  he  was  going  to 
say.  He  announced  that  the  pictures  that  were  going  to  be  shown 
were  doctored,  which  is  false.  He  lies  just  about  on  every  single 
thing  he  says.  And  believing  him  would  be  a  big  mistake. 

I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  he  has  done  what  he  said  he  is 
doing.  General  Franks  has  a  plan  that  addresses  a  host  of  very  un- 
pleasant contingencies,  and  there  are  a  lot  of  things  like  that  that 
can  go  wrong,  that  can  be  unpleasant,  that  can  make  the  task 
much  more  complex. 

With  respect  to  the  use  of  nonlethal  riot  agents,  I  regret  to  say 
that  we  are  in  a  very  difficult  situation.  There  is  a  treaty  that  the 
United  States  signed,  and  there  are  existing  requirements  that, 
without  getting  into  details,  require — well,  let  me  put  it  this  way. 
Absent  a  Presidential  waiver,  in  many  instances  our  forces  are  al- 
lowed to  shoot  somebody  and  kill  them,  but  they  are  not  allowed 
to  use  a  nonlethal  riot  control  agent  under  the  law.  It  is  a  very 
awkward  situation.  There  are  times  when  the  use  of  nonlethal  riot 
agents  is  perfectly  appropriate,  when  transporting  dangerous  peo- 
ple in  a  confined  space;  in  an  airplane,  for  example;  when  there  are 
enemy  troops,  for  example,  in  a  cave  in  Afghanistan,  and  you  know 
that  there  are  women  and  children  in  there  with  them  and  they 
are  firing  out  at  you,  and  you  have  the  task  of  getting  at  them,  and 
you  would  prefer  to  get  at  them  without  also  getting  at  women  and 
children,  and  noncombatants  as  you  point  out. 


30 

The  difficulty  of  writing  a  rule  of  engagement  so  that  a  soldier, 
a  single  human  being,  a  private,  a  sergeant,  knows  what  to  do  in 
that  enormously  complex — is  he  going  to  break  the  law  or  not?  And 
we  have  tangled  ourselves  up  so  badly  in  this  issue — Dick  Myers 
and  I  spent  this  week,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  probably  an  hour,  an 
hour  and  a  half,  trying  to  fashion  rules  of  engagement  that  would 
be  simple  enough  so  that  people  who  have  the  task  on  the  front 
line  in  a  few  instances,  in  a  second  or  two,  can  make  a  decision 
what  they  can  do  and  what  they  can't  do.  And  it  is  very  complex, 
and  it  is  unfortunate  in  my  humble  opinion. 

Mr.  Meehan.  Is  there  any  way,  Mr.  Secretary,  we  can  untangle 
this  I  guess  within  the  next  month  or  so? 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  We  are  doing  our  best  to  live  within  the 
straitjacket  that  has  been  imposed  on  us  on  this  subject,  and  trying 
to  find  ways  that  people  can — that  we  can  write  things  in  a  way 
that  people  can  understand  them  and  function  and  not  break  the 
law  and  still,  in  certain  instances,  be  able  to  use  nonlethal  riot 
agents. 

Do  you  want  to — is  that  roughly  right? 

General  MYERS.  I  think  that  is  roughly  right.  And  then  I  think 
to  get  to  the  question  about  combatants  and  noncombatants,  if  peo- 
ple take  up  arms  and  become  combatants  then  they  are  subject  to 
the  laws  of  armed  conflict.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  are  non- 
combatants,  if  the  regime  were  to  use  civilians  as  human  shields 
and  so  forth,  a  different  matter,  and  you  would  have  to  address 
that  differently.  And  I  think  we  ought  to  keep  that  in  mind.  If  they 
pick  up  arms  and  become  combatants,  then  they  are  combatants 
and  they  will  be  treated  as  such. 

Human  shields.  General  Franks  has  thought,  tried  to  think 
through  that  very  hard,  and  has  worked  very  diligently  with  the 
ground  forces  and  the  air  forces  and  those  involved  to  think  about 
ways  to  handle  those  situations  where  you  have  minimum  impact 
on  noncombatants.  That  is  always  the  goal. 

And  I  think  the  other  thing  is  that  the  people  of  Iraq,  my  belief 
is,  from  the  information  I  am  getting,  prefer — will  not  fight  in  this 
way;  that  the  average  person  will  not  fight,  because  they  will  see 
this  for  what  it  is — and  that  is  to  get  whatever  regime  that  makes 
food  distribution  a  problem  and  a  reward  in  some  cases,  that  pre- 
vents medical  care  across  the  population  in  general,  and  that  treats 
minority  pieces  of  the  population  in  ways  that  are  not  right — and 
I  think  they  will  see  it  in  that  way. 

And  certainly  we  have  been  trying  to  advertise  if  conflict  is  called 
for,  that  will  be  the  goal.  And  hopefully  those  people  that  will  be 
tempted  to  pick  up  arms  will  say  we  are  not  going  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Meehan.  Thank  you.  General.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  who  is 
the  Chairman  on  Projection  Forces,  Mr.  Bartlett. 

Mr.  Bartlett.  Thank  you.  Thank  you  very  much  for  your  testi- 
mony, gentlemen. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  two  questions  totally  unrelated.  The  first 
one  deals  with  the  necessity  of  looking  ever3rplace  we  spend  money 
to  see  if  it  is  wisely  spent.  So  I  want  to  talk  for  just  a  moment 
about  our  efforts  in  the  drug  program.  I  understand  we  spend 
roughly  about  $2V2  billion  a  year  on  eradication  and  interdiction. 


31 

And  we  destroy  a  lot  of  drugs  and  we  interdict  a  lot  of  drugs.  But 
in  spite  of  that,  there  is  no  shortage  of  drugs  to  meet  the  demand. 
And  I  suspect,  sir,  that  if  we  tripled  the  amount  of  money  that  we 
spend  on  eradication  and  interdiction  that  there  would  still  be 
enough  drugs  on  the  street  to  meet  the  demand.  Don't  you  think 
it  is  time  that  we  reevaluate  our  approach  to  that  problem? 

Second,  after  9/11  there  was  a  great  wave  of  patriotism  that 
swept  the  country  and  a  recognition  that  gee,  even  after  the  Cold 
War  we  still  do  need  a  military.  So  there  has  now  been  widespread 
support  for  increased  funding  for  the  military,  and  we  have  had 
some  increased  funding.  But  my  question  is,  sir,  what  kind  of  con- 
fidence do  you  have  that  at  the  end  of  the  day,  we  will  in  fact  be 
better  off  than  we  were  before  9/11? 

I  am  concerned,  sir,  that  even  with  the  increased  funding,  that 
we  are  now  spending  money  in  places  like  Bosnia  and  Afghanistan 
and  in  Iraq  and  in  North  Korea  and  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism. 
And  I  am  concerned  that  the  additional  monies  we  are  giving  you 
may  not  even  be  enough  money  to  carry  on  those  operations,  so 
that  at  the  end  of  the  day  we  may  be  worse  off  in  the  military  than 
we  were  before.  Would  you  comment  on  that,  sir? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  First,  Mr.  Congressman,  with  respect  to 
the  problem  of  drugs,  it  is  a  very  difficult  problem  for  the  world, 
for  our  country.  You  are  quite  right  that  demand  is  so  powerful 
that  despite  a  lot  of  effort  to  deal  with  the  supply  part  of  it,  there 
have  been  times  when  it  simply  has  moved  the  problem  from  one 
place  to  another;  and  with  a  lot  of  effort  going  into  dealing  with 
the  supply  side,  we  still  see  the  demand  there  and  the  usage  go  up. 
So  in  my  view  it  is  the  kind  of  a  problem  that  needs  to  be  tackled 
from  all  directions,  and  it  is — really  the  bulk  of  the  antidrug  money 
is  not  spent  in  the  Department  of  Defense.  It  is  spent  by,  in  the 
case  of  Colombia,  for  example,  the  Department  of  State,  and  then 
in  various  other  agencies. 

General  Myers  made  an  important  point  earlier.  There  is  an 
intersection  between  narcotrafficking,  hostage-taking,  and  terror- 
ists. And  revolutionaries.  And  it  is  hard  sometimes  to  say,  well,  we 
are  concerned  about  the  terrorists  but  we  are  not  concerned  about 
the  money  that  they  may  be  getting  through  hostage  taking  or 
through  narcotics  and  what  have  you.  So  I  think  that  it  is  hard  to 
put  them  into  separate  little  compartments. 

The  second  question  you  asked  is  a  tough  one.  In  this  world  of 
ours,  one  could  make  a  case  that  what  we  are  doing  is  exactly  the 
right  thing.  We  are  using  all  elements  of  national  power,  we  are 
using  a  90-nation  coalition,  we  are  putting  pressure  on  terrorists, 
terrorist  networks,  states  that  harbor  terrorists,  and  states — terror- 
ist states  that  have  weapons  of  mass  destruction.  And  it  is  having 
an  effect.  There  is  no  question.  We  can  see  the  chatter.  We  know 
the  difficulty  they  are  having  in  transferring  money,  the  difficulty 
they  are  having  in  moving  between  countries  and  buying  capabili- 
ties. In  executing  terrorist  acts  we  see  things  that  are  stopped.  We 
are  getting  much  better  intelligence  information. 

The  question  comes,  are  we  doing  a  good  enough  job  in  terms  of 
education,  in  terms  of  persuading  young  people  that  they  ought  not 
to  go  to  a  Madrasa  school  that  teaches  terrorism?  They  ought  to 
go  to  a  Madrasa  school  that  teaches  mathematics  and  things  that 


32 

they  can  actually  use  in  life.  And  trying  to  judge  if  there  are  more 
terrorists  being  created  than  are  being  inhibited  or  killed  or  cap- 
tured or  detained,  there  is  no  one  on  the  face  of  the  Earth  who  can 
answer  that  question.  All  I  can  say  is  I  think  that  to  have  put  to- 
gether an  80-nation  coalition  to  work  on  this  problem,  and  to  bring 
all  elements  of  national  power  together  and  each  day  do  a  better 
job  of  fusing  that  information  and  effectively  putting  pressure  on 
them,  is  what  we  know  we  have  to  do. 

What,  in  my  view,  we  are  not  doing  as  well  as  we  must  do  even- 
tually is  to  find  ways  to  provide  assistance  to  countries  that  want 
to  see  that  the  circumstances  in  their  countries  are  changed  so  that 
fewer  people  become  terrorists  in  the  first  instance.  A  religion  is 
being  hijacked  by  a  small  minority  of  people.  And  the  bulk  of  the 
people  in  that  religion  are  against  terrorism.  And  they,  as  well  as 
we,  are  going  to  have  to  do  a  better  job  of  seeing  that  that  minority 
of  that  religion  is  reduced  to  next  to  nothing  over  time. 

Mr.  Bartlett.  Are  we  giving  you  enough  money  to  do  all  of  these 
very  essential  things  and  to  transform  the  military?  Or  at  the  end 
of  the  day,  will  you  have  taken  money  from  these  other  pots  to 
carry  on  these  very  essential  activities  so  that  the  military  will  not 
be  in  any  better  shape  than  it  was  at  9/11? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  We  believe  we  have  put  forward  a  very 
good,  responsible  budget.  We  believe  it  has  a  proper  balance  be- 
tween taking  care  of  the  wonderful  men  and  women  in  uniform, 
seeing  that  we  modernize  those  things  we  need  to  modernize,  see- 
ing that  we  invest  in  transformation,  and  seeing  that  we  simulta- 
neously address  those  risks  in  terms  of  operational  capabilities.  We 
have  spent  a  lot  of  time  on  it.  We  think  it  is  a  good  budget.  We 
are  going  to  have  to  come  in  for  a  lot  more  money  in  a  supple- 
mental, and  let  there  be  no  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  Bartlett.  If  we  don't  fund  the  supplementals,  then  our 
readiness  will  be  at  risk. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Oh,  yes.  We  are  already  pulling  the  money 
out  of  the  pots  at  a  clip  of  about  a  billion  five  or  a  billion  six  just 
for  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism. 

Mr.  Bartlett.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentleman. 

The  distinguished  gentleman  from  Texas,  a  great  Border  Patrol 
chief  and  a  pretty  good  helicopter  crew  chief,  Silvestre  Reyes. 

Mr.  Reyes.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  appreciate  the  oppor- 
tunity. And,  gentlemen,  thank  you  for  joining  us  here  this  after- 
noon. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  got  several  things  that  I  want  to  ask  ques- 
tions on  but  I  know  in  five  minutes  I  won't  be  able  to  get  them  in. 
But  one  of  the  things  that  I  am  concerned  about  is  the  DOD's  plans 
to  contract  out  hundreds  and  possibly  thousands  of  civilian 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  I  am  sorry,  I  can't  hear  you. 

Mr.  Reyes.  The  concern  that  I  have  about  the  Department  of  De- 
fense plan  to  contract  out  thousands  of  civilian  jobs.  And  I  was  in- 
terested in  getting  your  perspective,  since  you  feel  that  we  are,  by 
allowing  our  military  people  that  are  in  their  forties  and  fifties  to 
retire,  that  we  are  losing  all  of  that  experience  at  the  optimum 
point  in  their  career.  I  would  submit  to  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  we 
are  doing  that  right  now  by  contracting  out.  We  are  losing  institu- 


33 

tional  experience  and  knowledge.  We  are  allowing  our  best  trained, 
most  knowledgeable  civilian  workers  to  leave,  and,  in  some  cases, 
conceivably  it  could  come  back  to  haunt  us  in  terms  of  a  national 
emergency.  What  kind  of  value-added  or  best-value  system  would 
you  envision  we  would  have  to  have  in  order  to  maintain  a  work- 
able civilian  work  force? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  There  are  things,  for  example,  that  we  are 
doing  currently,  like  making  eyeglasses,  which  could  hardly  be  con- 
sidered a  core  competency  of  the  Department  of  Defense.  Cleaning 
floors  in  buildings  is  hardly  a  core  competence  of  the  Department 
of  Defense.  What  we  are  trying  to  do  is  to  look  at  the  things  we 
are  currently  doing  and  look  at  how  technologies  have  changed  and 
see  if  we  can't  move  out  of  the  Department  completely  things  that 
are  not  necessarily  activities  that  the  Department  has  a  need  to 
consider  as  a  core  competence. 

Mr.  Reyes.  But,  Mr.  Secretary,  those  kind  of  jobs  have  been  gone 
long  ago.  We  are  talking  now 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  wish  that  were  true.  They  haven't.  We 
are  still  doing  a  lot  of  those  things. 

Second,  the  reason  that  the  Department  has  over  time  continued 
to  put  more  military  people  into  nonmilitary  jobs  and  more  contrac- 
tors into  civilian  employee  jobs  is  because  of  the  difficulty  of  man- 
aging the  civilian  defense  employee  base.  And  it  is  just  a  reality. 
People  are — you  know,  they  are  intelligent.  They  look  at  their  cir- 
cumstance and  say,  I  have  got  a  choice.  I  have  got  three  choices. 
I  have  got  a  task  to  do.  I  could  put  a  military  person  in  there  who 
I  can  bring  him  in,  he  can  go  to  something  else  later.  I  can  bring 
in  a  contractor  and  I  can  let  him  go  anytime  I  want  if  that  need 
changes,  or  I  can  bring  in  a  civilian  and  have  the  difficulty.  So  we 
need  to  fix  that  system  so  it  works  better. 

In  terms  of  the  Department  of  Defense,  the  goal  is  to  be  more 
efficient  and  cost  less  through  the  use  of  competitions.  And  the  Of- 
fice of  Management  and  Budget  directs  that  commercial  activities 
be  competed  between  the  government  and  the  private  sector  and 
only  inherently  governmental  functions  should  be  exempt  from 
that,  according  to  the  Department. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Could  I  just  add,  sir,  that  my  friend  John  Hanley, 
when  he  was  Deputy  Secretary  of  Defense,  pointed  out — and  it  is 
still  true — that  whenever  we  have  one  of  these  competitions,  it 
doesn't  matter  who  wins,  the  price  is  at  least  20  percent  lower; 
which  means  that  when  the  government  itself  bids,  somehow  mi- 
raculously the  price — and  that  is  to  say  the  cost  to  the  taxpayer — 
comes  down.  And  the  real  issue  isn't  who  gets  it.  The  real  issue  is 
how  much  does  the  taxpayer  save. 

Mr.  Reyes.  Yeah,  but  the  problem  is  in  reality  when  you  contract 
something  out  and  you  initially  save  money,  there  is  no  system  to 
come  back  and  maintain  that  price  structure.  So  we  have  seen, 
time  after  time,  the  effort  to  contracting  out  becomes  even  more  ex- 
pensive a  few  years  down  the  road,  plus  it — and  I  have  seen  this 
myself  in  my  previous  career;  that  you  have  added  charges,  sur- 
charges by  the  contractor  if  it  is  going  to  be  after  hours,  if  it  is 
going  to  be  on  weekends,  if  it  is  an  emergency.  I  am  just  saying 
I  do  not  believe  that  because  you  have  got  a  civilian,  you  have  got 
somebody  that  is  a  problem  for  our  installations.  We  have  done 


34 

very  well  throughout  the  history  of  the  military  by  emplo3ring  dedi- 
cated, hardworking,  committed  civilians,  and  we  are  now  chucking 
them  out  the  door,  trying  to  say  that  we  are  saving  money  and  try- 
ing to  say  that  we  have  got  to  find  a  quote-unquote  better  way  or 
a  streamlined  way,  without  paying  attention  to  what  you  said,  Mr. 
Secretary,  that  we  are  turning  these  people  out  in  their  forties  and 
fifties,  at  the  optimum  time  of  experience  and  value  to  the  military 
installations.  I  see  that  happening  in  the  installations  in  my  dis- 
trict. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Well,  Congressman,  you  are  absolutely 
right.  We  have  a  wonderful  group  of  civilian  employees  in  the  De- 
partment of  Defense.  We  have  people  who  are  dedicated  and  tal- 
ented and  hardworking.  What  we  have  got  to  do  is  to  find  a  way 
to  see  that  we  get  the  right  balance. 

For  example,  today — and  we  are  going  to  be  coming  and  we 
would  be  happy  to  work  with  you  on  how  we  can  refashion  some 
of  these  rules — but  at  the  present  time,  if  we  go  to  a  college  job  fair 
where  young  people  coming  out  of  college,  smart,  computer  tech- 
nology people,  and  they  want  a  job,  and  so  we  go  and  interview 
along  with  private  enterprise,  well,  what  happens?  Private  enter- 
prise says,  "By  golly,  you  are  better  at  this  than  people  who  maybe 
have  been  doing  it  for  20  years  because  you  are  just  coming  right 
out  with  an  M.A.  or  a  master's  or  a  Ph.D.  in  computer  science.  We 
would  like  to  hire  you."  and  the  seniority  issue  isn't  really  relevant. 

By  the  same  token,  we  can't  offer  them  a  job.  We  have  to  hand 
them  a  form  and  say,  gee,  figure  this  out,  fill  it  out,  then  you  can 
compete  with  the  top  three,  and  months  and  months  and  months 
go  by,  because  they  are  dealing  with  the  United  States  Government 
and  that  is  the  way  the  United  States  Government  works.  And  the 
company  walks  up  and  says  you  are  hired.  And  we  don't  get  them. 

Now,  if  we  don't  fix  these  rules,  we  are  in  trouble  because  we  are 
not  going  to  be  able  to  attract  and  retain  the  best  people.  And  we 
would  be  happy  to  work  with  you  about  how  we  can  do  that. 

Mr.  Reyes.  Well,  Mr.  Secretary,  if  I  can,  the  problem  is  young 
people  aren't  going  to  want  to  come  to  work  for  the  government  be- 
cause they  see  the  older  people  getting  thrown  out  as  younger, 
more  agile  employees  are  coming  in.  I  don't  see  that  as 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  don't  see  older  people  being  thrown  out 
in  the  civilians. 

Mr.  Reyes.  Well,  the  people  in  their  forties  and  fifties  that  are 
being  replaced  by  contracts  and  companies 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Oh,  I  see.  If  it  is  competed  and  they  lose 
the  contract.  I  see  your  point. 

Mr.  Reyes.  I  mean,  why  would  a  young  person  want  to  go  to 
work  for  an  organization,  knowing  at  some  point  he  or  she  is  going 
to  suffer  the  same  fate? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  there  is  no  way  to  track  it  perfectly, 
but  very  frequently  when  there  is  competition  and  the  contractor 
wins  over  the  government,  the  people  transfer  over  there  and  per- 
form it  for  them,  and  that  happens  quite  often  as  you  know.  So 
there  are  a  lot  fewer  people  who  lose  their  job,  so  to  speak,  in  that 
environment  than  I  think  the  impression  might  be.  I  can't  guaran- 
tee that,  but  I  know  that  that  occurs  in  some  instances. 


35 

Mr.  Reyes.  Well,  somebody  has  said  that  they  are  going  to — the 
administration  plans  on  cutting  the  civilian  work  force  by  20,000 
or  a  third  or  something.  I  forget  what  the  newspaper  said. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  I  haven't  heard  that. 

Mr.  Reyes.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  And  another  distin- 
guished gentleman  from  Texas,  Mr.  Thornberry. 

Mr.  Thornberry.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Secretary,  you  ended  your  testimony  with  a  statement  that 
I  did  not  find  in  your  written  testimony.  I  think  you  said,  "I  feel 
deeply  about  the  urgency  to  transform  the  Department."  That  feel- 
ing of  urgency  is  something  that  I  share,  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
creating  a  culture  of  innovation  within  the  Department  is  more  im- 
portant than  what  we  buy  or  even  how  we  invest  some  of  our  re- 
search dollars.  And  you  listed  in  your  statement  several  things 
such  as  organizational  flexibility,  some  personnel  flexibility  reforms 
that  you  talked  about,  and  some  others  maybe  you  didn't  talk 
about,  some  other  things  such  as  training  and  education,  lifelong, 
career-long  education,  which  seems  to  me  to  be  the  crucial  ele- 
ments in  creating  this  culture  of  innovation. 

Mr.  Thornberry.  I  guess  what  I  want  to  ask  is,  how  important 
do  you  think  these  nonprocurement  items  are  to  creating  the  kind 
of  department  you  would  like  to  create,  and  to  be  a  bit  more  prac- 
tical about  it,  how  does  this  rank  on  your  list  of  priorities? 

I  mean,  trjdng  to  think  for  a  second  about  you  having  to  worry 
about  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism  in  Iraq,  and  tensions  in  other 
parts  of  the  world.  When  you  try  to  change  the  personnel  system 
inside  the  Department,  you  are  going  to  have  more  fighting  on  your 
hands  than  most  of  us  would  like  to  deal  with. 

And  so,  looking  at  the  broader  scope  of  your  responsibilities,  is 
it  worth  taking  that  fight  on?  Where  does  it  rank  in  your  priority 
as  far  as  trjdng  to  create  this  culture  of  innovation  and  transform 
in  the  Department? 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  The  short  answer  is,  yes,  it  is  worth  taking 
it  on,  in  my  view,  sir.  If  I  were  to  put,  on  a  scale  of  ten  being  the 
most  important  and  one  being  the  least  important,  I  would  put 
things,  platforms,  down  near  the  bottom,  and  I  would  put  the  cul- 
ture and  people  up  near  the  top. 

I  would  guess  that  the  single  most  important  thing  that  General 
Myers  and  General  Pace  and  Paul  Wolfowitz  and  I  have  done,  and 
the  President  is,  over  the  past  two  years,  spend  an  enormous 
amount  of  time  thinking  through  who  the  key  people  will  be  in  the 
critical  posts,  and  who  they  will  have  around  them.  It  is — either 
there  is  an  attitude  that  is  the  right  attitude  about  recognizing  the 
nature  of  the  21st  century  or  there  isn't. 

And  we  have  spent  an  enormous  amount  of  time  trying  to  find 
people  who  understand  that.  And  I  believe  we  have  done  that  in 
many,  many  cases.  And  so  how  do  they  then  deal  with  this  great 
institution?  And  it  is  a  wonderful  institution.  And  every  time  I  say 
something  about  its  imperfections,  I  cringe  a  little,  because  I  don't 
like  to  do  that.  It  is  just  an  amazing — I  suppose  it  is  the  biggest 
institution  on  the  face  of  the  earth  in  many  respects. 

But,  the  truth  has  a  certain  virtue.  And  despite  the  wonderful 
people  and  the  wonderful  things  that  this  institution  does  for  the 


36 

world  in  contributing,  contributing  to  peace,  to  stability,  the  fact  re- 
mains it  is  like  turning  a  giant  ship.  And  we  have  got  it  started 
turning.  And  it  takes  time.  And  it  takes  people  on  that  ship  who 
want  it  to  turn,  who  want  to  calibrate  it  in  the  right  direction. 

And  the  people  are,  walking  away,  the  single  most  important 
thing.  And  they  have  to  be  able  to  deal  down,  just  as  it  is  critically 
important  that  Dov  Zakheim  get  the  financial  institutions  and 
management  systems  in  this  institution  to  work  so  that  managers 
can  look  down  and  see  what  the  effects  of  their  acts  are,  which  we 
can't  today,  we  can't  track.  Most  of  the  financial  systems  are  de- 
signed to  report  to  Congress,  not  to  gain  information  and  knowl- 
edge. 

But  we  have  to  have  the  ability  to  lead  people  and  see  that  the 
culture  is  changed.  So,  you  know,  people  have  said  to  me  ever  since 
I  got  in  the  Department  this  second  time,  golly,  do  you  really  want 
to  do  that?  Wouldn't  it  be  a  lot  easier  not  to  have  a  Base  Realign- 
ment and  Closure  (BRAC)?  Wouldn't  it  be  easier  to  just  sit  back 
and  fight  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism  or  to  do  something  else. 

I  think  that  if  anything,  September  11th  and  what  is  going  on 
in  this  world  with  the  terrible,  terrible  danger  we  face  with  the 
nexus  of  weapons  of  mass  destruction  and  terrorist  networks  being 
capable  of  imposing  death  and  destruction  on  innocent  men,  women 
and  children  in  this  country  and  in  our  interests  across  the  globe, 
creates  a  sense  of  urgency  that  we  do  not  transform,  not  that  we 
throw  in  the  towel  and  say  that  we  are  too  busy  to  transform,  but 
we  must  do  it. 

Mr.  Thornberry.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  Dr.  Snyder. 

Dr.  Snyder.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Gentlemen,  I  appreciate 
you  being  here.  I  don't  know  if  you  see  this  as  a  gauntlet  of  torture 
or  a  debating  society,  but  we  really  appreciate  your  time  here. 

First,  just  a  comment.  In  your  opening  comments,  Mr.  Secretary, 
you  mentioned  flexibility.  One  of  the  areas  I  really  encourage  you 
and  our  commander-in-chief  to  stand  behind  in  terms  of  flexibility 
is  Cooperative  Threat  Reduction  moneys.  There  is — that  may  be 
the  cheapest  amount  of  safety  that  we  can  buy  in  the  world.  There 
is  broad  support  in  the  American  public  and  in  the  Congress-obvi- 
ously  Senator  Lugar  is  now  chairman,  but  there  is  broad  support. 

There  are,  in  my  opinion,  a  small  number  of  Members  of  the 
Congress  that  want  to  put  conditions  and  micromanage,  and  I  just 
encourage  you  to  stick  by  your  guns  and  be  willing  to  threaten  a 
veto  over  the  defense  bill  to  get  the  kind  of  language  that  you  all 
need. 

General  Myers,  Senator  Bob  Graham  a  day  or  two  before  his 
heart  surgery,  and  we  all  wish  him  well,  but  I  attended  a  forum 
where  he  was  a  speaker.  And  he  gave  a  ballpark  figure  that  he 
thought  that  there  was  about  a  hundred  thousand  terrorists  in  the 
world.  Is  that  a  ballpark  number  that  you  think  is  in  the  range? 

General  Myers.  Congressman,  you  know  I  would  hesitate  to  ven- 
ture a  guess  at  this  point.  I  mean,  I  think  we  know  in  terms  of  al- 
Qaeda,  there  are  thousands  that  were  trained  in  Afghanistan,  I 
think  we  have  a  pretty  good  understanding  of  those  numbers. 


37 

I  would  just  hesitate  to  say,  because  it  changes  every  day.  Some 
are  rounded  up,  some  decide  that  that  is  not  what  they  want  to  do, 
as  other  people  decide  that  is  what  they  want  to  do. 

Dr.  Snyder.  I  appreciate  that.  The  reason  the  number  stuck  in 
my  mind  was  because  the  President,  in  the  State  of  the  Union  Ad- 
dress, I  think  he  gave  a  total  of  about  3,000  people  that  had  been 
rounded  up  or  killed.  If  Senator  Graham's  number  is  right,  then  we 
have  got  a  long  ways  to  go. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  wanted  to  ask  you,  I  did  not  understand  the  ex- 
change between  you  and  Mr.  Spratt  over  this  language  in  your 
written  statement  that  you  amplified  on,  this  2004  budget  does  not 
include  funds  for  operations  in  the  Global  War  on  Terror. 

My  understanding  of  what  happened  last  year  is  that  there  was 
resistance  from  the  Congress  because  of — for  want  of  a  better 
word — we  referred  to  the  ten  billion  dollar  slush  fund,  but  that 
there  was  reluctance  to  give  that  kind  of  no-strings-attached  au- 
thority. 

But,  as  General  Myers  just  acknowledged,  thousands  of  people 
are  still  out  there.  Senator  Graham  thinks  maybe  a  hundred  thou- 
sand people  are  still  out  there.  In  your  statement,  you  say  this  war 
is  going  to  go  on  for  years  to  come.  Why  would  we  not  have  some 
kind  of  articulated  amount  of  dollars  in  the  budget — not  just  a  total 
amount,  but  an  estimate  of  force  or  fuel  or  food  or  transport? 

I  mean,  rather  than  doing  this  by  supplemental,  because  this  is 
going  to  be  ongoing  costs  for  years  to  come.  This  sounds  like  very 
poor  planning.  Maybe  it  is  misleading  to  the  American  people  of 
what  the  costs,  the  true  cost  of  our  defense  budget  is. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Mr.  Congressman,  it  isn't  misleading.  In- 
deed, we  said  what  we  thought  that  was.  We  said,  when  we  put 
the  ten  billion  dollars  up,  that  it  was  not  a  slush  fund,  that  is  a 
phrase  that  you  can  be  sure  that  we  didn't  use. 

Dr.  Snyder.  If  I  can  interrupt  you.  Please  talk  about  this,  as  we 
are  heading  into  this  budget  year. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  will.  I  will  get  there.  But,  the  ten  billion 
dollars  we  said  would  cover  the  cost  of  the  Global  War  on  Terror- 
ism for  the  first  period  of  months  before  the  Congress  went  on  re- 
cess, had  Christmas,  came  back  in  session,  got  organized  and 
began  to  look  at  the  subject  of  a  supplemental  sometime  in  Feb- 
ruary or  March. 

And  we  were  about  right.  We  figured  it  at  about  a  billion  to  a 
billion  and  a  half  a  month.  And  what  was  it  going  for?  We  said  it 
was  going  to  go  for  the  combat  air  patrols  flying  over  the  United 
States,  we  said  it  was  going  to  provide  for  the  force  protection  of 
the  United  States,  we  said  it  was  going  to  provide  for  the  funds 
that  we  were  spending  in  Afghanistan  to  do  that. 

We  could  not  say  that  it  would  necessarily  go  for  train  and  equip 
activities  in  the  country  of  Georgia,  because  we  knew  that  we 
would  be  doing  train  and  equip,  because  those  are  things  where  we 
don't  have  to  use  our  forces.  If  they  are  willing  to  get  trained  and 
equipped  to  help  fight  terrorism,  our  country  is  better  off  having 
them  do  that.  And  we  are  training  people  in  Yemen  and  the  like. 

Now,  we  can't  know  which  country  is  going  to  agree,  but  we  can 
know  in  advance  that  we  are  going  to  engage  in  that  type  of  activ- 
ity. We  had  those  things. 


38 

Now,  the  current  situation.  We  did  not  put  money  in  it  this  year 
for  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism,  nor  did  we  put  money  in  for  the 
cost  of  the  build-up  to  support  the  diplomacy  with  respect  to  Iraq. 

Now,  one  can  say,  well,  why  didn't  you?  Well,  because  we  didn't 
get  it  last  time,  number  one.  The  same  argument  would  have  been 
made,  a  slush  fund,  which  is,  I  think,  improper.  And  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  predict  what  it  would  cost  because  we  built  that  budget  and 
submitted  it  to  OMB  a  couple  of  months  ago  back  in  December  and 
November.  And  it  was  built  over  the  preceding  year. 

What  is  evolving  now  wasn't  knowable.  So,  in  terms  of  the  build- 
up on  Iraq,  we  couldn't  predict  that,  because  we  didn't  know  what 
the  President  would  do.  In  terms  of  the  Global  War  on  Terror,  we 
could  have. 

Dr.  Snyder.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may 
make  a  comment  to  you.  I  think  we  ought  to  pursue  this,  maybe 
some  of  us  who  are  more  junior  Members  don't  understand  this. 
But,  I  mean,  when  I  talk  to  people  back  home  in  Arkansas,  the 
number  one  goal  they  want  us  to  go  after  is  the  war  on  terrorism. 
Yet  we  don't  have  it  in  the  President's  budget  proposal.  I  am  con- 
fused here.  If  the  Secretary  can't  trust  us  or  we  can't  trust  the  Sec- 
retary or  something,  but,  somehow  we  have  to  budget  for  this. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  will  just  tell  the  gentleman,  we  did  pass 
the  ten.  And  it  turns  out,  their  estimate  was  fairly  accurate.  They 
said  this  will  carry  us  through  March.  That  roughly  works  out  to 
a  billion  six  a  month.  And  they  did  describe  the  air  caps,  the  trans- 
portation, the  call-ups,  basically  operational  costs  that  were  kind  of 
the  ham  and  eggs  costs  of  operations  that  they  could  expect,  be- 
cause they  were  undertaking  them,  and  Congress,  as  a  whole,  did 
not  fund  it.  So  them's  the  facts. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  It  is  certainly  not  a  matter  of  us  trusting 
the  committee.  We  came  up  and  gave  the  committee  every  piece  of 
information  that  we  conceivably  could.  And  over  the  period  with  all 
of  the  committees  in  both  houses  that  are  involved,  it  ended  up  not 
happening  is  all. 

Dr.  Snyder.  Just  one  final  comment,  because  I  have  been  talking 
about  the  budget  back  home.  There  is  a  lot  of  inquiries  about  it. 
I  did  not  realize  when  I  was  doing  my  press  calls  since  the  Presi- 
dent's budget  came  out  that  I  need  to  go  back  now  and  say,  oh,  by 
the  way  this  budget  does  not  cover  the  operations  for  the  war  on 
terrorism. 

Now,  that  is  not  how  the  people  of  Arkansas,  I  think,  see  the 
President's  budget. 

The  Chairman.  Just  one  last  point  for  my  friend.  That  is  true. 
But  they  did  include  them  last  year,  and  the  Congress  as  a  whole, 
I  mean  both  bodies,  rejected  that.  So  they  didn't  come  back.  But, 
in  reality,  I  would  just  tell  the  gentleman  with  respect  to  the  last 
number  of  major  contingencies,  the  budget  regularly  does  not  in- 
clude those,  and  they  are  always  funded  in  the  so-called  supple- 
mental. The  problem  is,  you  are  reaching  in  the  cash  drawer,  lit- 
erally, and  pulling  out  cash  that  is  designed  and  was  intended  to 
go  for  training  and  repairs  and  lots  of  other  things. 

So  even  when  you  replenish  the  cash  drawer,  you  have  had  to 
cancel  training  rotations,  and  it  is  a  very  messy  and  very  inconven- 
ient way  to  do  business. 


39 

So  I  would  say  this,  Vic,  I  think  this  exigency  that  we  are  in 
right  now  is  going  to  drive  us  and  the  DOD  together,  and  maybe 
there  is  going  to  be  more  trust  going  in  both  directions.  But,  I  do 
have  to  say,  they  did  come  to  us,  they  described  what  they  needed, 
and  they  were  pretty  accurate  on  the  time  hne.  And  it  would  have 
carried  us  just  about  to  March,  which  is  what  they  described  at  the 
time. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Chairman,  may  I  make  one  more  comment? 
As  I  listen  to  you,  and  I  listen  to  the  chairman,  the  global  war — 
first  of  all,  the  chairman  is  exactly  right.  Wars  tend  to  be  funded 
by  supplementals  because  they  are  not  predictable  and  you  can't 
quantify  them  a  year  or  six  months  or  even  four  months  in  ad- 
vance. 

The  Global  War  on  Terror,  however,  is  kind  of  in  between.  It  is 
not  the  base  budget,  but  it  is  going  to  last  over  a  period  of  time. 
It  has  already,  it  is  very  likely  into  the  future  for  some  period, 
which  is  not  knowable.  But,  what  is  knowable  is  a  reasonable  pro- 
jection as  to  what  it  will  cost  over  a  12-month  period.  So  it  is  a  new 
kind  of  a  thing  for  us. 

And  maybe  that  is  why  in  this  case,  the  first  time  we  came  up, 
it  didn't — it  didn't  take. 

Dr.  Snyder.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  you.  And  just  one  last  point.  This  com- 
mittee did  approve  that  ten  billion  dollars.  It  got — it  got  stopped 
at  a  later  point,  but  we  did  approve  that. 

The  very  distinguished  gentleman  from  Nevada,  Mr.  Gibbons. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  That  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  Gentlemen, 
thank  you  for  your  patience  here  today.  I  know  it  has  been  a  long 
afternoon,  and  you  have  been  diligent  in  answering  our  questions. 
We  appreciate  that. 

I  do  want  to  congratulate  you  on  submitting  a  capabilities-based 
budget,  along  with  the  new  strategies  that  you  have  got  going.  I 
think  that  is  an  outstanding  approach  to  helping  us  better  under- 
stand our  abilities.  And  as  we  kind  of  scratch  through  the  surface 
here  and  target  in  on  some  of  these  programs,  I  just  want  to  look 
at  some  of  the  macro  concepts  that  are  in  here. 

And  one,  I  see  that  for  the  fiscal  2004  budget,  we  are  looking  at 
DOD  outlays  as  3.4  percent  of  gross  domestic  product  (GDP).  Is 
that  3.4  percent  inclusive  of  supplementals,  or  exclusive  of 
supplementals? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  It  does  not  include  the  supplementals.  The 
number  there  is  the  base  budget  that  we  have  presented  today. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  Would  you  mind,  then,  getting  us  a  revised  answer 
to  include  the  supplemental  spending  in  terms  of  DOD  outlays,  in 
terms  of  our  GDP  spending,  give  us  a  better  ratio  of  how  much  we 
are  spending  with  regard  to  what  we  are  putting  into  DOD. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  We  don't  have  the  outlays  yet  for  2003. 
And  there  is  no  supplemental  yet  for  2003,  so  we  won't  know  until 
Congress  acts  on  the  2003  supplemental.  But,  we  can  calculate  that 
for  prior  years.  And,  of  course,  the  outlay  tends  to  be  less  than  the 
budget  authority. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  All  right.  I  had  a  question  for  Dr.  Zakheim,  and 
I  appreciate  your  presence  here  as  well.  As  you  know,  many  mem- 
bers of  this  committee  have  been  very  interested  and  have  worked 


40 

on  a  multi-year  program  plan,  procurement  plan,  for  the  C-130. 
Have  you  signed  out  or  signed  off  on  that  plan,  and  if  you  have 
done  so,  when  will  the  required  notification  be  sent  up  here  to  Con- 
gress? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  I  don't  think  yet  that  it  is  finalized;  am  I  correct. 
It  is  not — it  is  not  final  yet.  Once  it  is,  and  of  course  that  goes 
through  the  chain  of  my  colleague,  Pete  Aldrich,  the  Under  Sec- 
retary for  Acquisition,  Technology  and  Logistics.  Then,  of  course, 
notifications  come. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  Right.  Do  you  have  any  estimated  time  for  ap- 
proval on  that  and  signing  off  on  it? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  I  have  been  told  that  we  are  awfully  close.  I  can't 
give  you  a  precise  week,  but  we  are  not  talking  about  months  and 
months  and  months. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  So,  within  the  next  several  days  you  would  say? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  I  think  it  is  a  little  more  than  days,  but  I  think 
it  is  a  little  less  than  months. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  Okay.  I  had  one  final  question  for  General  Myers. 
And  your  service  to  our  Nation  has  always  been  appreciated.  For 
many  briefings  you  have  discussed,  when  have  you  come  before  this 
committee,  the  need  for  Congress  to  act  to  help  preserve  our  train- 
ing ranges  and  training  requirements  for  the  future. 

Can  you  describe  the  problems  you  are  having  now  that  are  asso- 
ciated with  preserving  these  ranges,  and  kind  of  give  the  measures 
that  are  needed  or  you  expect  Congress  to  do  to  enable  these 
changes  in  preservations. 

General  Myers.  You  bet.  Let  me  tag  on  to  what  the  Secretary 
said  earlier.  I  think  people  can  be  proud  of  what  the  Department 
of  Defense  has  done  in  terms  of  stewardship  of  the  environment. 
We  work  that  very  hard.  I  think  if  you  check  with  most  states,  with 
Federal  agencies,  you  will  find  that  that  is  a  problem  that  I  know 
as  a  commander  I  worked  very  hard,  I  know  it  is  being  worked  by 
commanders  in  the  field  today  very  hard. 

The  problem  is  that  some  of  the  acts  to  protect  various  species 
are  being  now  used  in  a  way  that  I  don't  think  they  were  intended, 
by  people  taking  these  into  courts  and  stopping  certain  actions. 
And  the  actions  that  we  are  concerned  most  about  are  those  that 
impact  our  training.  And  the  worst  thing  we  can  do  to  our  people, 
worse  than  inadequate  pay,  worse  than  bad  housing,  worse  than 
anything  is  to  leave  them  inadequately  trained,  so  when  the  Presi- 
dent calls  on  them  to  go  forward,  that  they  can't  perform  their  mis- 
sion in  a  way  that  they  are  capable  of  performing  it. 

That  is  a  big  problem.  The  Migratory  Bird  Act  is  one  act  that  we 
need  some  relief  from.  There  are  a  couple  of  others,  as  well.  We 
talked  about  that  last  year,  as  well.  We  got  great  support  out  of 
this  committee,  but  unfortunately,  it  didn't  carry  the  day.  But  this 
year  that  is  more  important  than  ever,  or  we  are  going  to  send — 
we  have  the  potential  to  send  our  young  men  and  women  into  po- 
tential combat  without  adequate  training. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  In  the  State  of  Nevada  alone,  we  have  the  Endan- 
gered Species  Act.  It  impacts  training  there  at  Nellis  on  the  ranges, 
archeological  sites  that  I  actually  give  great  credit  to  the  Air  Force 
for  preserving,  it  has  done  great. 


41 

But  Congress  will  need  to  take  some  action,  I  believe,  in  order 
to  allow  the  services,  that  would  be  the  point  I  am  trying  to  make. 
Congress  needs  to  act  in  order  to  relieve  your  requirements  under 
the  Act. 

General  MYERS.  I  think  that  is  absolutely  required.  That  is  our 
view  as  well,  that  if  we  are  to  preserve  our  training  environment 
so  we  can  train  in  a  realistic  way  and  prepare  our  people  for  poten- 
tial conflict,  while  at  the  same  time  taking  care  of  the  environment, 
they  are  not  mutually  exclusive,  and  I  think  we  can  do  that.  We 
have  done  it  in  the  past.  It  is  the  recent  court  cases  I  think  that 
have  made  this  a  lot  more  problematic. 

Mr.  Gibbons.  One  final  comment,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  let  it  go. 
I  think  the  added  additional  burden  and  cost  of  meeting  some  of 
these  requirements  has  taken  away  some  of  the  resources  needed 
for  our  services  to  be  able  to  train  and  properly  support  our  men 
and  women  in  the  field  who  are  defending  this  Nation.  So  I  think 
this  is  an  important  issue  for  this  committee  to  take  up.  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentlelady  from  Cali- 
fornia, Ms.  Tauscher. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Secretary,  General  Myers,  thank  you  for  your  dedicated  hard 
service.  And  I  would  also  like  to  send  my  thanks  to  the  people  at 
the  Pentagon  who  withstood  a  terrible  attack,  well  over  15,  16 
months  ago,  who  basically  all  went  to  work  the  next  day,  those  who 
were  blessed  to  survive  and  who  are  represented  by  your  very  able 
staff  sitting  behind  you,  who  are  kind  of  the  unsung  heroes,  both 
in  uniform  and  out. 

Please  thank  them  on  our  behalf  for  their  continued  dedicated 
service. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  was  concerned  to  read  in  the  Los 
Angeles  Times  on  Monday  that  the  Pentagon  has  launched  a  $1.26 
billion  program  to  design  computers  to  determine  when  nuclear 
weapons  might  be  used  to  destroy  deeply-buried  targets,  potentially 
harboring  chemical,  biological  and  even  nuclear  agents. 

At  a  time  when  this  committee  has  not  yet  received  a  report  re- 
quired in  the  2003  authorization  bill  on  the  potential  uses  of  the 
robust  earth  penetrator  or  whether  or  not  we  can  still  use  conven- 
tional weapons  to  defeat  hardened  targets,  I  am  deeply  concerned 
that  the  administration  is  pushing  the  envelope  on  trying  to  design 
a  new  generation  of  smaller,  more  usable  nuclear  weapons,  creat- 
ing a  more  unstable  and  dangerous  world. 

Disconnected  the  practical  use  of  conventional  force,  diplomacy  or 
inspections  that  we  used  in  Afghanistan,  and  to  deal  with  Iraq  and 
North  Korea,  the  administration,  through  a  series  of  pronounce- 
ments from  the  nuclear  posture  review  of  the  national  security 
strategy,  and  most  recently  the  national  strategy  to  combat  weap- 
ons of  mass  destruction,  has  outlined  a  security  posture  for  the 
United  States  that  puts  emphasis  on  preemptive  strikes  and  on  the 
offensive  use  of  nuclear  weapons. 

I  would  like  to  know.  A,  whether  or  not  this  $1.26  billion  com- 
puter program  is  under  development;  and  B,  what  circumstances 
you  believe  would  justify  the  use  of  nuclear  weapons  by  the  United 


42 

States,  considering  I  thought  we  had  a  no-first-use  poHcy  in  this 
country. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  am  going  to  have  to  get  back  to  you  with 
details  on  that,  because  I  am  trying  to  reach  into  the  duffel  bag 
here  and  recall  what  element  of  the  classified  nuclear  posture  re- 
view someone  might  have  reported  on  in  the  Los  Angeles  Times. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  Well,  I  have  both  the  story  and  the  request  for 
proposal  (RFP).  The  RFP  is  a  Defense  Threat  Reduction  Agency 
(DTRA)  RFP,  which  I  have  got  a  copy  of,  talking  about  this  $1.26 
billion  computer  program. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  First  of  all,  I  do  not  know  what  that  is  re- 
ferring to.  Second,  I  know  there  is — I  am — ^you  never  know  every- 
thing, but  I  am  99-%o  positive  there  is  no  new  weapon  develop- 
ment of  the  nature  that  you  are  describing. 

To  the  extent  research  is  being  done  on  deep  penetrator,  that  is 
entirely  possible.  And  it  is  a  growing  problem  for  the  world.  If  one 
looks  across  the  globe  at  the  number  of  countries  that  are  doing 
things  underground  that  make  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  get  at 
them,  we  are  looking  at  a  whole  host  of  things  as  to  how  we  can 
better  understand  what  is  taking  place  in  terms  of  information. 
And  it  is — the  problem  of  tunneling  and  underground  activities  is 
going  to  be — is  a  serious  problem  for  us  today,  and  it  is  going  to 
continue  to  be  a  serious  problem  in  the  future. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  I  acknowledge  that  it  is  a  problem.  But  it  is  not 
clear  to  me  that  it  is  a  problem  solved  by  the  use  of  nuclear  weap- 
ons. If  you  could  just  address  this  issue  of  what  would  justify,  in 
your  mind,  the  use  of  nuclear  weapons  by  the  United  States,  con- 
sidering that  we  have  a  no-first-use  policy,  even  if  we  got  to  a  situ- 
ation where  we  spent  $1.26  billion,  modeled  a  way  for  us  to  justify 
the  fact  that  we  needed  to  do  it. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Again,  I  would  like  to  underline,  so  that 
the  record  is  very  clear  that  I  cannot  confirm  what  you  are  sa3ring 
as  fact,  you  read  in  the  Los  Angeles  Times.  And  I  wouldn't  want 
it  to  go  out  of  here  with  the  world  thinking  that  it  is  necessarily 
correct,  simply  because  it  is  in  a  newspaper. 

A  comment  on  no-first-use.  You  state  that  as  U.S.  Policy.  I  am 
trying  to  think  if  the — this  Administration  has  commented  on  that. 
But,  historically,  we  have  never  had  a  no-first-use  policy.  Our  pol- 
icy as  a  country,  for  example,  during  the  era  of  the  Soviet  Union 
was  that  they  had  much  greater  conventional  capability  and  the 
advantage  of  attack. 

And  one  of  the  critical  elements  in  the  deterrent  for  the  Western 
allies  was  that  we  explicitly  did  not  rule  out  first  use. 

So  throughout  that  entire  Cold  War  period,  a  war  which  we  won 
with  patience  and  effective  deterrence  and  investment,  our  policy 
was  to  the  other  side,  don't  be  certain  we  will  not  use  them,  be- 
cause if  you  use  overwhelming  conventional  capability,  we  will  not 
assure  you  that  we  would  not  stop  that  invasion  by  the  use  of  nu- 
clear weapons.  And  it  worked. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  Well,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  am  looking  forward  to  con- 
tinuing to  engage  you  on  this  issue,  because  you  may  be  correct, 
that  we  do  not  have  a  formalized  policy.  But,  I  can  tell  you  that 
I  believe  that  my  constituents  in  California  do  not  believe  that  the 
United  States  should  use  nuclear  weapons  first,  and  nor  do  they 


43 

believe  that  we  should  preemptively  have  weapons  that  we  are  try- 
ing to  make  smaller  and  more  portable  to  go  after  hardened  tar- 
gets. That  is  why  in  the  conference  we  appropriated  $15  million  for 
a  study  to  look  at  this  issue,  and  now  it  looks  like,  whether  you 
believe  the  L.A.  Times  or  not.  as  a  Californian  I  have  to,  it  looks 
like  in  the  budget,  there  is  a  $1.26  billion  to  strap  a  bunch  of  com- 
puters together  to  model  how  we  might  use  nuclear  weapons 
against  hardened  targets. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  once  again,  you  use  the  phrase  that 
"not  making  such  weapons."  and  I  am  reasonably  confident,  99  and 
nine-tenths,  that  we  are  not  making  such  weapons. 

So  those  that  read  the  paper  and  are  concerned  about  that  can 
sleep  well  tonight. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  I  will  send  you  a  letter.  I  have  C-5s  in  my  dis- 
trict at  Travis  Air  Force  Base.  They  have  done  just  a  phenomenal 
job.  They  have  done  a  third  of  the  missions  and  lifted  half  of  the 
cargo  for  Enduring  Freedom.  They  have  got  an  avionics  package 
upgrade  that  we  need  to  do,  but  we  are  only  budgeting  about  half 
of  them.  So,  I  am  going  to  write  to  you  and  not  take  any  more  of 
the  committee's  time,  and  urge  that  to  move  along  a  little  faster. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Fair  enough.  Can  I  make  one  last  com- 
ment, please.  You  said  your  constituents  do  not  want  nuclear  weap- 
ons used.  No  sane  person  would  like  to  see  those  weapons  used. 
They  are — they  have  been  used  twice  in  anger,  what  55,  58  years 
ago. 

And  it  is  a  wonderful  thing  that  humanity  has  not  used  those 
weapons  again  in  anger  in  that — in  the  58  years  or  whatever  it  is. 
That  is  an  amazing  accomplishment.  I  don't  think  in  the  history  of 
mankind  there  has  been  a  situation  where  there  has  been  a  weap- 
on of  that  type  that  has  not  been  used  in  that  period  of  time. 

Why  is  that?  It  is,  I  think,  because  people  are  respectful  of  their 
lethality.  And  that  is  a  good  thing.  And  I  think  that  successive  ad- 
ministrations of  both  political  parties  since  1945  have  engaged  in 
conflicts,  various  places  around  the  world,  where  those  weapons 
could  have  been  used  and  were  not.  I  think  that  that  is  not  bad. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  Well,  my  constituents  at  the  Lawrence  Livermore 
National  Laboratory  in  Sandia,  who  made  those  weapons  with  Los 
Alamos,  made  them  the  best  so  that  we  would  never  have  to  use 
them. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentlelady.  And  from  a  Chairman 
from  another  part  of  California  who  does  not  have  to  believe  the 
Los  Angeles  Times,  I  think,  Mr.  Secretary,  you  have  been  brought 
into  some  degree  into  a  debate  that  we  had  in  the  conference  over 
the  use  of  penetrators,  these  with  underground  penetration  capabil- 
ity. And  the  idea  was,  that  if  deterrence  does  work,  you  don't  want 
to  allow  the  guy  who  pulls  the  trigger  and  kills  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  civilians  by  launching  an  attack  against  the  United  States 
or  our  allies  to  be  able  to  then  go  underground  to  the  facilities  that 
he  has  constructed  to  make  himself  safe,  and  escape  any  of  the  re- 
percussions of  his  own  activities. 

And  our  argument,  of  course,  for  those  who  wanted  to  see  this 
capability  at  least  explored,  was  that  that  is  a  species  of  deter- 
rence. And  so  that — that  was  a  debate  that  we  had.  And  so  we  did 
agree  to  have  reports  on  the — on  the  effects  of  underground — these 


44 

underground  penetrators.  But,  it  was  also,  as  I  believe,  directed 
that  there  would  be  a  report  on  the  devastation  that  would  be 
caused  by  one  of  the  leaders  who  might,  in  fact,  cause  a  nuclear 
incident  above  ground,  and  kill  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people 
above  ground. 

So  we  had  our  conference  debate  on  this.  I  know  we  will  engage 
at  a  future  time.  I  thank  the  gentlelady  for  her  contribution. 

And  let  me  move  to  Ft.  Bragg,  and  that  gentleman  who  rep- 
resents a  lot  of  special  operators  so  effectively,  Mr.  Hayes. 

Mr.  Hayes.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  And  gentlemen,  thank 
you  for  being  here.  There  have  been  no  such  reports  in  the  Fayette- 
ville  Observer  or  the  Concord  Tribune  up  to  this  point.  Focusing  a 
minute  on  special  operations,  and  let  me  frame  the  question  by 
saying  all  of  our  men  and  women  in  every  uniform  have  distin- 
guished themselves  tremendously.  But  for  the  moment,  for  special 
operators,  there  have  been  some  incredibly  capable  things  and  ac- 
complishments that  they  have  done. 

In  your  budget,  on  page  six,  you  have  added  a  1.5  billion  plus- 
up,  which  is  most  appropriate.  How  are  you  going  to  fill  those  bil- 
lets and  still  maintain  and  increase  the  standards  and  capabilities 
of  those  folks?  What  is  the  plan  for  the  money?  How  are  we  going 
to  do  this? 

General  Myers.  In  terms  of — the  budget  does  many  things.  One 
of  the  things  it  does,  of  course,  and  you  would  understand  this  im- 
mediately is  that  we  have  got  to  reconstitute  some  of  their  equip- 
ment. And  a  lot  of  helicopters  being  the  big  issue,  we  are  right 
against  the  stop  there.  So  you  will  see  some  of  the  money  is  going 
to  the  helicopters,  CH-47,  MH-47,  Echos,  some  Blackhawks  spe- 
cially configured  for  special  forces,  as  well.  So  that  is — and  some 
130s.  That  is  part  of  it. 

The  other  part  is  to,  if  the  vision  is  to  give  special  operators  and 
special  operations  command  responsibility  for  our  global  vision  on 
the  counterterrorism  fight,  then  we  have  got  to  posture  them 
worldwide  appropriately.  And  that  is  going  to  require  a  plus-up  in 
personnel  in  the  various,  theater  command  centers.  So  part  of  it  is 
that,  as  well.  Part  of  it  is  also  for  a  plus-up  at  the  headquarters 
in  Tampa,  because  they  are  right  now  an  organized  train  and  equip 
headquarters,  not  an  operational  headquarters,  if  you  will.  The  op- 
erations part  has  been  at  Ft.  Bragg. 

And  so  there  is  going  to  be  an  operations  part  that  will  be  stood 
up  with  people  that  will  come  in  from  the  other  services  to  stand 
that  up. 

Mr.  Hayes.  How  are  we  going  to  advertise  and  fill  those  slots? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  That  won't  be  a  problem.  Let  me  add  two 
things.  Some  of  that  money  has  to  go  to  finding  ways  that  we  can 
reduce  the  footprint  of  special  operators  and  get  them  to  move  fast- 
er. The  time  that  is  available  to  deal  with  some  of  the  more  dif- 
ficult threats  we  face  around  the  world  is  not  a  leisurely  week  or 
two  or  three  or  four;  it  is  hours  and  days. 

And  that  costs  money  to  increase  that  ability  to  respond  more 
quickly.  And  in  many  instances  it  doesn't  permit  a  large  footprint. 
And  we  are  trjdng  to  find  ways  to  reduce  the  size  of  that  footprint, 
and  that  costs  money. 


45 

General  Myers.  The  majority  of  those  billets,  Congressman 
Hayes,  if  memory  serves  me  right,  are  from  the  United  States 
Army.  And  the  Army  has  already  agreed  to  shifting  those  billets 
over  to  special  operations  command  business. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  One  other  thing  we  are  doing  is  we  are  tak- 
ing some  of  the  Tier-three  activities  and  developing  some  Army  and 
Marine  and  other  service  capabilities  to  do  some  of  those  things. 
We  are  trying  to  avoid  using  special  operators  for  things  that  oth- 
ers can  do  as  well.  For  example,  training  the  Afghanistan  Army, 
training  and  equipping  the  Georgian  forces  that  we  have  been 
working  with.  We  tended  to  use  special  operators  because  they  are 
so  good  at  it. 

But  there  are  plenty  of  people  in  the  Army  and  the  Marines  who 
are  not  special  operators  who  can  do  those  jobs.  And  we  are  also, 
in  the  case  of  protection  for  President  Karzai  of  Afghanistan,  we 
have  taken  the  special  operators  out  and  transferred  it  to  a  con- 
tractor, that  is  former  special  operators,  but  there  are  lots  of  things 
that  we  can  do  to  see  that  we  increase  their  research  and  speed 
and  agility. 

Mr.  Hayes.  I  have  got  a  nice  book  that  we  put  together  with  your 
help,  and  Jennifer  Thompson  on  my  staff  and  others  that  show 
what  you  all  need.  Let's  get  some  more  money  to  do  it. 

Next  question.  Privatization.  No  question  about  it,  there  are 
some  good  things  being  done.  We  have  had  five  A-76  projects  at 
Ft.  Bragg,  four  of  them  stayed  in-house,  kind  of  keeping  people 
stirred  up,  and  sometimes  unnecessarily.  How  can  we  keep  from 
having  that  get  people  wrapped  around  the  anchor  chain  and  still 
get  the  job  done? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Well,  obviously  A-76,  which  has  been  the  standard 
way  of  doing  this,  is  not  the  only  way  to  do  this.  And  we  are,  in- 
deed, exploring  other  ways  to  address  the  privatization  issue. 

You  know,  the  Secretary  mentioned  earlier  that  some  folks 
who — if  the  government  doesn't  keep  the  jobs,  they  become  contrac- 
tors. It  is  probably  worth  noting  that  in  England,  they  did  the 
same  thing  with  their  Ministry  of  Defense,  and  ultimately  the 
unions  themselves  quietly  came  back  to  the  ministry  and  said,  you 
know,  our  people  are  actually  doing  better  by  moving  out  in  certain 
cases,  because  they  get  different  kinds  of  benefits  and  so  on. 

So  the  key  is,  can  we  do  it  in  a  less  cumbersome  way?  Can  we 
do  it  in  a  way  that  saves  the  taxpayer  money?  Again,  it  doesn't 
matter  who  wins  it.  Like  you  pointed  out,  a  lot  of  these  jobs  stay 
with  the  government. 

Mr.  Hayes.  Thank  you,  sir.  And  last  question  and  I  will  close. 
Mr.  Secretary,  when  you  are  talking  to  some  of  your  dear  friends 
in  the  press,  ask  them  what  the  cost  prior  to  September  11th  was, 
what  their  budget  would  have  been  for  not  aggressively  pursuing 
a  war  on  terrorism.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  distinguished  gen- 
tleman from  New  Jersey,  Mr.  Andrews. 

Mr.  Andrews.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  thank 
each  of  you  three  gentlemen  for  your  service  and  for  your  patience 
today. 

A  lot  of  people  say  that  the  world  changed  on  September  11th. 
I  respectfully  disagree. 


46 

I  don't  think  the  world  changed  much  at  all,  but  our  awareness 
of  it  changed  rather  rapidly.  But  I  don't  think  we  changed  our 
awareness  quite  enough  yet.  And  I  offer  two  observations  and  then 
a  question. 

This  question  of  how  much  money  we  have  allocated  for  the  war 
against  terrorism  confuses  the  operation  in  Afghanistan  with  the 
war  against  terrorism.  You  can  make  a  good  case  that  almost  ev- 
erything in  the  defense  budget  is  relevant  to  the  war  against  ter- 
rorism. 

If  the  determination  is  made  that  extinguishing  a  terrorist  sanc- 
tuary somewhere  requires  the  use  of  air  power  or  naval  power  or 
special  forces,  then  some  portion  of  that  existing  budget  is  going  to 
go  for  that  purpose. 

The  second  suggestion  I  would  make — I  agree  with  Mr.  Thorn- 
berry  about  the  urgency  of  transformation.  And  I  think  one  of  the 
tools  that  we  could  use  on  the  committee  and  the  Department  could 
use  in  public  discourse  is  a  sort  of  weighted  average,  where  you 
could  take  the  expenditures  we  are  presently  making  on  various 
weapons  systems,  aspects  of  our  budget,  and  multiply  it  by  a  factor 
that  is  assigned  based  on  the  value  of  the  mission  that  that  weap- 
ons system  or  aspect  of  the  budget  could  accomplish  and  how  im- 
portant that  is. 

My  own  observation  would  be  that  1960s-era  weapons  systems 
designed  to  win  a  ground  war  in  Western  Europe  would  have  a 
very  low  value.  When  multiplied  by  their  very  large  dollar  figures, 
would  yield  a  very  small  product. 

On  the  other  hand,  tools  for  information  dominance,  for  rapid  for- 
ward deployment  and  similar  tools  that  I  think  would  be  incredibly 
relevant  for  the  war  against  terrorism,  should  be  assigned  a  much 
higher  value,  and  I  think  if  you  analyze  the  budget  that  way,  you 
would  find  that  our  priorities  are  skewed  in  the  wrong  direction. 
Would  you  care  to  comment  on  that? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  I  think  it  is  an  interesting  observa- 
tion. As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  spent  a  good  deal  of  time,  and 
we  have  got  us  a  group  of  insiders  and  outsiders  working  right  now 
on  developing  metrics  for  the  Department.  The  Department  seems 
not  to  have  many  ways  of  measuring  what  we  are  doing  or  how 
well  we  are  doing  it. 

Our  information  systems  are  poor,  our  financial  management 
systems  are  poor.  The  people  focused  on  this  are  in  the  process  of 
establishing  these  metric  so  that — because  of  the  truth.  The  truth 
is  what  you  measure  improves.  It  gets  better.  And  either  you  find 
a  way  to  do  that  and  track  it  month-to-month,  day-to-day,  or  you 
don't. 

And  there  is  no  question,  but  that  there  are  a  good  many  things 
that  we  do  that  don't  get — wouldn't  get  the  weighted —  . 

Mr.  Andrews.  I  think  it  proves  the  point  for  transformation, 
which  I  would  urge  you  to  keep  pursuing.  The  question  I  have  for 
you  is  the  far  more  immediate  question.  And  within  the  balance  of 
what  propriety  and  respect  for  classified  information  would  let  you 
do,  I  think  it  is  very  important  that  we  dissuade  this  notion  we 
hear  in  the  popular  media  that,  quote,  going  it  alone  in  Iraq  is  even 
a  remote  possibility. 


47 

I  am  confident  that  Secretary  Powell's  powerful  presentations 
today  at  the  United  Nations  will  yield  a  formal  declaration  of  sup- 
port from  the  UN  should  conflict  be  necessary.  But,  I  wonder  if  you 
could  outline  for  us  the  activities  for  military  cooperation  that  are 
already  in  place,  that  are  already  committed  by  allies  of  the  United 
States,  to  the  extent  that  concerns  about  confidentiality  and  classi- 
fied information  let  you  do  that. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Congressman,  you  are  certainly  right.  We 
have  a  nontrivial  number  of  countries  that  have  already  agreed, 
quite  apart  from  any  second  resolution,  that  are  willing  to  partici- 
pate with  military  combat  and  support  capabilities.  We  have  a 
number  of  countries  two  or  three  times  that  that  are  close  to  that. 

We  have  a  very  large  number  that  have  agreed  to  participate  as 
part  of  a  coalition  of  the  willing,  by  providing  access,  basing,  over- 
flight and  that  type  of  thing.  We  have  another  group  of  countries 
that  are  willing  to  do  it  only  if  there  is  a  second  resolution  at  the 
UN.  They  say,  although  the  political  cover,  if  you  will,  that  they 
would  get  by  knowing  the  number  of  countries  and  the  names  of 
the  countries,  that  are  able  to  participate  or  willing  to  participate 
would  certainly  I  think  bring  some  of  them  in  regardless  of  wheth- 
er there  is  a  second  resolution. 

And  then  there  is  another  pretty  good  group  of  countries  that  are 
indicating  that  they  want  to  help  in  a  post-Saddam  Hussein  Iraq 
in  the  coalition  to  assist  in  reconstruction. 

Then  there  are  three  or  four  countries  that  have  said  they  won't 
do  anything.  I  believe  Libya,  Cuba  and  Germany  are  ones  that 
have  indicated  they  won't  help  in  any  respect,  I  believe. 

Mr.  Andrews.  I  see  my  time  is  up.  We  very  much  appreciate 
your  continuing  articulation  of  that  position.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  distinguished 
gentlelady  from  Virginia,  Mrs.  Davis. 

Mrs.  Davis  of  Virginia.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Gentlemen, 
I  would  just  like  to  say  thank  you  for  the  job  that  you  are  doing 
on  our  global  war,  and  especially  to  our  men  and  women  in  the 
military,  who  are  just  making  us  prouder  and  prouder  every  day. 
I  just  add  my  thanks  as  the  rest  of  my  colleagues. 

Mr.  Secretary,  you  know  I  am  going  to  the  ship  building  account. 
I  am  just  really  pleased  to  see  that  one  billion  plus  go  in  for  the 
CVN-21.  I  think  that  given  the  fact  that  sea  bases  are  what  we 
are  looking  at  in  these  global  wars,  that  is  a  wise  decision  and  I 
really  appreciate  it. 

But  what  does  concern  me,  and  I  appreciate  the  seven  new.  What 
does  concern  me  is  the  26  ships  that  you  are  retiring,  dropping  us 
down  to  291,  and  then  being,  I  believe,  2009  when  we  get  to  305. 

I  heard  what  you  said  to  the  gentleman  from  Mississippi,  that 
rather  than  look  at  the  number  of  ships,  look  at  what  the  ships  can 
do.  Based  on  that,  what  do  you  see  as  the  proper  size  of  the  Navy 
to  fulfill  the  requirements  in  your — I  think  you  outlined  it  in  your 
defense  planning  guide. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  am  knowledgeable  and  aware  of  what  the 
Chief  of  Naval  Operations  has  said,  and  I  consider  him  to  be  a 
truly  outstanding  officer  and  individual  who  has  excellent  judg- 
ment. I  am  personally  inclined  to  defer  a  judgment  on  a  number 
until  I  see  the  mix. 


48 

What  we  are  doing  at  the  present  time  I  am  convinced  will  help 
our  Department  do  a  vastly  better  job.  And  we  are  in  the  process 
of  developing  joint  concepts  of  operations,  which  we  can  then  test 
activities  against,  and  look  at  the  services  and  have  them,  in  a 
sense,  compete  to  perform  tasks  that  need  to  be  done  jointly  on  be- 
half of  a  combatant  commander  for  a  range  of  different  types  of 
scenarios. 

At  that  time,  when  we  have  that,  sometime  early  this  year,  a 
first  cut  at  it,  we  will  then  begin  to  test  against  that  the  various 
services'  capabilities  and  platforms  and  ideas.  And  out  of  that,  I  be- 
lieve, will  fall  answers  with  respect  to  what  the  Navy  ought  to  look 
like — now,  the  Navy  is  going  to  look  like  it  looks  today  for  a  long 
time,  the  lead  times  are  so  long  on  these. 

But,  I  think  we  will  have  a  better  idea  of  what  the  mix  of  capa- 
bilities we  need  in  the  Navy  in  the  outyears.  It  is  awfully  hard  to 
look  past  five  or  ten  years.  These  ships  last,  as  you  well  know,  dec- 
ades, and  thank  goodness  they  do.  But,  their  need  is  not  going  to 
disappear,  and  I  am  going  to  defer  on  a  specific  number  until  I  de- 
velop more  conviction. 

Mrs.  Davis  of  Virginia.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary.  And  I  will  be 
watching  it  closely,  as  you  know.  And  Dr.  Zakheim,  did  you  have 
a  comment  that  you  wanted  to  make? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  In  terms  of  the  ships  that  are  leaving  the  fleet,  this 
isn't  a  particularly  new  approach.  These  were  identified  by  the 
Chief  of  Naval  Operations.  To  give  you  largest  class,  it  was  the 
Spruance  Class.  They  were  built  in  the  mid  1970s.  And  they  real- 
ly— of  course  they  are  decent  ships,  and  I  am  pretty  sure  a  lot  of 
navies  in  the  world  would  want  them. 

But  relative  to  our  missions  today,  they  really  don't  bring  all  of 
that  much  to  the  table.  You  remember  Admiral  Zumwalt  when  he 
was  Chief  of  Naval  Operations  (CNO),  cut  the  force  down  from 
1,000  to  500.  So,  relative  to  that  kind  of  radical  slice,  this  isn't  real- 
ly that  large  a  cut  at  all. 

Mrs.  Davis  of  Virginia.  Well,  if  we  had  500,  I  wouldn't  be  ask- 
ing the  questions. 

Mr.  Secretary,  if  we  can  go  back  to — I  just  want  to  make  sure, 
and  I  don't  want  this  to  be  combative,  I  just  want  to  make  sure 
I  understand  a  comment  that  you  made  earlier  when  you  said 
that — I  want  to  make  sure  I  get  you  right — that  Congress  has  not 
given  DOD  enough  ability  to  manage  its  accounts. 

Then,  right  after  your  statement.  General  Myers  said  that — ^I 
don't  know  if  he  said  it  or  if  I  read  it  in  his  written  statement — 
that  he  cited  the  extraordinary  success  of  the  Millennium  Chal- 
lenge '02  as  critical  to  transforming  DOD. 

And  if  my  memory  serves  me  right,  it  was  just  last  year  that  I 
had  to  work  with  my  Virginia  colleagues  to  restore,  I  think  it  was 
$70  million  to  the  Millennium  Challenge,  '02  because  that  had  been 
cut  by  DOD. 

Is  that  the  type  of  congressional  interference  you  are  referring  to 
when  we  start  doing  things  like  that? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Certainly  not.  My  goodness  gracious.  We 
have  increased  the  funds  for  the  joint  forces  command  and  for  the 
types  of  things  that  you  are  talking  about  in  this  budget  by  a  sig- 
nificant percentage.  And  I  think — I  don't  know  what  I  said  pre- 


49 

cisely,  but  I  know  what  my  testimony  said.  And  it  was  that  we  do 
have  a  problem  operating  the  Department.  There  are  an  awful  lot 
of  restrictions  on  us. 

Some  of  them  are  self-imposed,  some  of  them  are  procedures  that 
have  just  grown  up  like  barnacles  in  the  Department.  We  don't 
need  any  legislative  relief  at  all.  There  are,  however,  in  a  number 
of  instances,  places  where  we  do  need  legislative  relief. 

And,  no  one  has  a  monopoly  on  wisdom.  This  Congress  and  this 
committee  and  the  appropriators  have,  in  many  instances,  given 
guidance  to  the  Department  and  direction  to  the  Department, 
which  is  their  proper  right  under  the  Constitution,  that  has  re- 
sulted in  improvements  in  our  military  capabilities,  let  there  be  no 
doubt. 

What  we  need  is  to  have  that  exchange  back  and  forth,  so  that 
we  together  find  the  right  answers.  And  that  is  why  we  have  spent 
so  much  time  in  the  recent  months  meeting  with  Members  and 
meeting  with  staffs,  to  try  to  see  that  we  got  that  interaction  going. 
My  hope  is  that  before  this  committee  or  other  committees  of  the 
Congress  make  changes  in  a  closed  room  without  our  having  a 
chance  to  talk  to  them  about  them,  the  way  that  the  Congress  is 
having  a  chance  to  talk  to  us  as  we  build  the  budget,  that  we  will 
have  a  crack  at  some  discussing  and  try  to  give  a  sense  of  what 
we  think  it  could  do  to  the  coherence  and  the  balancing  of  the  risk 
that  we  have  tried  to  take. 

And  that  means  that  we  would  like  to  be  a  part  of  that  process. 
We  would  like  to  be  a  part  of  the  conference  process  so  that  no  one 
goes  into  a  dark  room,  a  closed  room,  I  mean,  and  makes  a  set  of 
decisions.  Then  we  discover  them  the  next  day  and  we  didn't  have 
a  chance  to  say,  wait  a  minute,  do  you  realize  that  this  will  have 
that  effect? 

Mrs.  Davis  of  Virginia.  Sounds  fair,  Mr.  Secretary.  But  most  of 
us  don't  get  in  that  dark  room  either. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Congresswoman  Davis,  the  increase  is  more  than 
55  percent  from  last  year  to  this  year. 

Mrs.  Davis  of  Virginia.  Thank  you,  gentlemen,  and  thank  you, 
Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentlelady.  And  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  Mr.  Marshall. 

Mr.  Marshall.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  look  forward  to 
serving  with  you,  and  I  want  to  thank  the  Secretary  and  General 
Myers  for  all  they  have  done  for  our  country.  I  do  that  on  behalf 
of  my  constituents.  I  come  from  middle  Georgia.  My  district  has 
employees  in  Robins  Air  Force  Base,  Ft.  Benning,  Ft.  Stewart,  Ft. 
Gordon.  I  trained  at  Ft.  Stewart  for  advanced  infantry,  and  then 
Benning  for  NCO  school.  Ranger  school  and  jump  school.  So  it  is 
a  personal  interest  of  mine  to  represent  those  areas  well. 

I  am  one  who  thinks  that  if  we  are  going  to  go  into  Iraq,  sooner 
is  better  than  later  for  many  reasons,  take  more  than  five  minutes 
for  me  to  explain  my  justification  for  that.  Certainly  don't  want  to 
do  it  too  soon,  and  don't  want  to  do  it  without  our  allies  in  tow  and 
without  Security  Council  approval,  et  cetera. 

I  think  that  having  allies  in  tow  and  Security  Council  approval 
is  something  that  is  important  to  the  overall  war  on  terrorism. 


50 

Mr.  Secretary,  you  mentioned  that  a  larger  objective,  a  long-term 
objective  is  to  have  those  kids  in  the  Madrassas  learning  math  in- 
stead of  hatred  of  the  United  States,  that  in  the  long-run,  cutting 
off  the  supply  of  terrorists  is  something  that  is  strategically  very 
important  to  us.  And  yet,  I  understand  that  last  week,  if  I  under- 
stood the  exchange  earlier  correctly,  you  and  General  Myers  spent 
an  hour  and  a  half  trying  to  figure  out  rules  of  engagement  because 
you  were  troubled  by  the  use  of  nonlethal  force  when  the  enemy 
is  engaged. 

To  me,  at  least,  I  have  to  believe  that  one  of  the  things  that  you 
are  thinking  about  is  how  to  do  this  in  Iraq  causing  the  least  dam- 
age to  the  long-term  strategic  objective  of  not  fomenting  more 
angry  terrorists  and  kids  that  want  to  kill  Americans. 

And  so  I  have  to  assume  that  one  of  the  things  you  are  consider- 
ing is  how  to  do  this  with  the  least  force,  as  the  military  always 
does,  and  using  nonlethal  force  from  time  to  time.  Am  I  correct 
about  that? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Your  phraseology  suggested  that  we  were 
troubled  by  the  use  of  nonlethal  force.  That  would  be  a  terrible 
misunderstanding.  But  what  we  were  trying  to  do,  is  to  find  ways 
that  nonlethal  force,  that  is  to  say,  riot  agents,  for  example,  could 
be  used  within  the  law  and  within  the  treaty. 

And  that  is  a  difficult  thing  to  do  given  the  treaty  that  has  been 
signed  by  the — it  is  a  treaty,  is  it  not? 

General  Myers.  Yes. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  That  has  been  signed  by  the  United  States 
and  the  other  addendum  or  attachments  or  agreements  or  under- 
standings that  attach  thereto. 

We  agree  with  you  that  it  is  important  that  the — that  force  be 
measured,  force  be  proportionate,  force  be  designed  in  a  way  that 
it  enables  you  to  achieve  your  military  goals  with  the  least  conceiv- 
able interference  with  innocent  people  and  noncombatants. 

Mr.  Marshall.  Well,  to  the  extent  that  we  can  have  any  impact 
on  giving  you  the  tools  to  go  in  there  and  do  it  the  way  you  want 
to  do  it  using  measured,  nonlethal  force,  then  you  should  ask  us, 
and  I  am  sure  that  we  would  be  willing  to  move  fairly  quickly. 

I  should  simply  say  as  well  that  Robins  Air  Force  Base  does 
stand  ready  and  willing  to  handle  the  new  platform  for  the  J-Stars. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  from  New 
Hampshire,  Mr.  Bradley. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  thank 
you  all  gentlemen  for  your  fine  words  this  afternoon  and  for  your 
long  years  of  service.  And  I  also  thank  you  for  your  commitment 
and  for  the  commitment  of  all  of  the  men  and  women  who  serve 
under  you  to  protect  the  safety  of  Americans. 

My  district  includes  the  Portsmouth  Naval  Shipyard.  They  do  an 
excellent  job  of  helping  to  maintain  our  nuclear  deterrent  in  their 
mission.  And  also  I  appreciated  your  words  this  afternoon  with  re- 
gard to  the  National  Guard. 

At  some  point  in  time  in  the  future,  where  it  is  not  so  late  in 
the  day,  I  look  forward  to  having  further  conversation  with  you 
about  that.  Thank  you  again. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Thank  you  very  much. 


51 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  from 
Florida,  Mr.  Meek. 

Mr.  Meek.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  Once  again,  it 
is  an  honor  to  serve  on  the  committee.  Mr.  Secretary,  General, 
Comptroller,  pleasure  to  have  an  opportunity  to  hear  some  of  the 
comments  and  suggestions,  especially  as  we  move  forward  in  this 
time  of  conflict  or  possible  conflict. 

I  wanted  to  ask  a  question.  Last  year,  I  didn't  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  not  only  serve  on  this  committee,  but  even  be  in  the  Con- 
gress, but  I  was  an  outsider  and  quite  a  few  things  that  I  did  pay 
very  close  observation  to.  I  understand  last  year  that  DOD  in  this 
Congress  authorized  an  under  secretary  position  for  intelligence. 

And  as  we  start  to  have  the  debate  within  things  that  you  can 
discuss  with  the  American  people  about  the  safety  of  troops  abroad 
and  especially  now  in  Iraq,  intelligence  was  one  of  the  big  issues, 
as  it  relates  to  not  only  homeland  security,  but  troops  abroad. 

How  are  the  responsibilities  changing  now,  within  the  param- 
eters which  you  can  discuss  with  us,  to  give  the  American  people 
and  also  this  committee  that  DOD  is  doing  everything  it  can  to 
make  sure  that  those  individuals  return  home?  Because  I  can  tell 
you,  there  is  no — how  would  you  say — I  am  not — I  wasn't  a  mili- 
tary son  or  whatever  the  case  may  be,  but,  watching  these  men  and 
women  leave  to  protect  our  country  was  quite  tear  jerking  and 
emotional  for  many  Americans.  And  if  you  could  speak  within  the 
parameters  of  sharing  with  us  and  the  American  people  of  how  far 
we  have  moved  in  that  area. 

Maybe  it  could  be  some  of  the  testimony  that  Secretary  Powell 
shared  with  the  security  council  today  because  of  that  office  and 
what  it  is  doing  to  protect  our  troops. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Well,  thank  you.  Congressman  Meek. 

When  I  came  back  to  the  Department  two  years  ago,  it  was  clear 
that  the  Department  was  deeply  involved  as  a  part  of  the  Intel- 
ligence Community  with  the  Central  Intelligence  Agency  and  the 
other  elements  of  intelligence  gathering. 

And  we  have  the  National  Reconnaissance  Office,  National  Im- 
agery and  Mapping  Agency  (NIMA),  Army  and  Navy,  Air  Force  In- 
telligence, we  have  the  Defense  Intelligence  Agency,  and  I  am  sure 
I  have  forgotten  something.  But  we  have  these  national  security 
agencies  and  others.  And  they  all  do  a  wonderful  job. 

And  yet  the  task  is  not  so  much — there  are  two  tasks.  One  is 
having  data  and  information.  And  the  other  is  having  it  in  the 
right  place,  in  the  right  time,  with  the  kind  of  coherence  and  ana- 
lytical backdrop  to  it. 

So  the  reason  we  recommended  and  appreciate  the  Congress  ap- 
proving an  Under  Secretary  for  Intelligence  is  so  that  we  can,  num- 
ber one,  see  that  those  threads  come  up  through  the  needle  head 
in  a  more  responsible  way.  And,  second,  it  will  make  the  task  of 
the  Director  of  Central  Intelligence,  George  Tenet,  considerably 
easier,  because  when  he  plugs  into  our  Department,  instead  of 
plugging  in  six  or  eight  places,  he  will  be  able  to  plug  in  through 
the  Under  Secretary  of  Intelligence,  and  have  a  senior  official  there 
able  to  help  cause  that  department — these  multiple  agencies  in- 
volved with  intelligence,  respond  to  the  Director  of  Central  Intel- 
ligence in  an  effective  way. 


52 

There  was  a  feeling  that  when  the  Cold  War  ended,  that  the  task 
of  the  Intelligence  Community  would  be  easier.  And  so  a  lot  of  re- 
ductions were  taken  during  the  1990s.  It  turns  out  to  be  a  big  mis- 
take. The  Intelligence  Community  needs  funds,  and  they  need 
funds  because  the  world  is  a  big  place. 

And  we  have  to  now  look  not  only  at  the  Soviet  Union,  which  you 
could  learn  and  get  comfortable  with  and  watch  it  move  in  kind  of 
a  ponderous,  predictable  way. 

But  we  have  got  to  look  at  a  whole  host  of  closed  societies,  places 
Hke  North  Korea,  which  is  closed,  and  any  number  of  terrorist 
states.  We  have  to  look  at  ungoverned  areas  in  the  globe.  Increas- 
ingly, there  are  big  chunks  of  countries  that  the  countries  don't 
control,  that  are  really  not  effectively  under  the  governance  of  the 
so-called  government  of  that  country. 

So  the  task  that  the  Intelligence  Community  has  is  more  dif- 
ficult, not  less  difficult.  Second,  the  ability  to  deny  and  deceive  is 
growing  every  day.  Because  we  were  talking  about  the  under- 
ground tunneling  and  activities  that  take  underground.  The  knowl- 
edge that  has  proliferated  around  the  globe  as  to  how  our  satellites 
work  and  when  we  are  able  to  see  things,  and  what  we  are  able 
to  see,  what  our  techniques  are. 

We  have  had  spies  who  have  given  away  information  that  have 
just  been  terribly  harmful  to  our  ability  to  know  what  is  happening 
in  the  world.  And  simultaneously  with  the  increase  in  the  difficulty 
of  the  task,  you  have  had  the  increase  in  the  lethality  of  the  weap- 
ons. The  proliferation  of  chemical  and  biological  weapons.  And  we 
sit  here  today  facing  a  world  within  a  decade  where  there  could  be 
another  four,  five  or  six  nuclear  powers,  and  not  nuclear  powers 
Hke  England,  not  nuclear  powers  like  the  United  States,  nuclear 
powers,  nuclear  weapons  in  the  hands  of  terrorist  states. 

So  it  makes  task  of  getting  better  intelligence  faster,  and  fused 
in  a  way  that  it  is  actionable  and  usable  for  knowledge  so  much 
greater,  because  the  risk  is  so  much  greater. 

Mr.  Meek.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  just  quickly.  Mr.  Secretary, 
I  just — I  think  that  that  is  so  very,  very  important.  I  was  a  captain 
in  the  highway  patrol  before  I  went  into  the  Florida  legislature. 
The  issue  of  security  and  preventative  measures  as  it  relates  to  se- 
curity is  never  high  on  the  totem  pole  until  someone  is  missing 
their  car  in  the  parking  lot. 

But  I  just  wanted  to  say  that  if  we  can  tie  that  intelligence  in 
with  the  saving  of  American  lives  in  Iraq,  or  even  using  it  and 
using  it  as  relates  to  North  Korea,  and  credit  the  activities  or  the 
authorization  from  the  Congress  and  the  efforts  to  the  Department 
of  Defense  in  saving  lives,  the  reason  that  we  didn't  have  a  great 
loss  of  hfe  is  that  we  had  the  kind  of  intelligence  we  needed  to 
make  sure  that  individuals  returned  home. 

I  know  we  all  hold  that  in  a  high  record.  But  as  you  and  General 
Myers  talk  more  about  troops  going  and  being  safe,  I  think  that 
sharing  to^whatever  limit  you  can  with  the  American  people — 
would  be  quite  helpful,  because  we  will  be  the  ambassadors  in  our 
districts  of  explaining  to  mothers  and  wives  and  husbands  about 
the  safe  return  of  their  loved  ones. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Congressman,  that  is  an  enormously  im- 
portant topic.  I  am  delighted  you  raised  it.  And  you  are  quite  right. 


53 

We,  as  a  country,  by  doing  better  in  this  area,  can  save  lives  by 
taking  action  before  the  fact  rather  than  trying  to  clean  up  some- 
thing after  it  has  happened.  Thank  you. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  from 
Ohio,  Mr.  Turner. 

Mr.  Turner  of  Ohio.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Secretary.  I  appreciate  your  efforts  to  provide  information  to  new 
members  bringing  us  up  to  speed  on  some  of  your  goals.  I  appre- 
ciate the  briefing  that  we  had  last  week  where  you  talked  about 
the  accomplishments  that  you  have  had  over  the  past  two  years 
and  what  you  outlined  and  highlighted  today  and  your  goals  of 
transformation  and  certainly  that  process.  One  of  the  themes  that 
is  consistent  throughout  your  presentation  is  the  issue  of  New  Cen- 
tury and  shifting  from  the  Industrial  Age,  and  in  concert  with  that 
theme  my  question  goes  to  the  area  of  science  and  technology  fund- 
ing. 

In  your  presentation  you  indicate  that  the  goal  of  three  percent 
of  funding  for  science  and  technology  (S&T)  will  not  be  met  with 
the  requests  being  at  2.69  percent.  And  looking  at  the  other  mate- 
rials we  received,  they  also  indicate  that  last  year's  request  was 
similar,  at  2.68  percent.  And  listening  to  some  of  your  issues  of 
transformation  and  reductions,  we  can  talk  in  terms  of  achieving 
efficiencies  and  shifting  priorities.  But  in  science  and  technology  we 
are  talking  about  investing  in  really  our  advantage  on  the  battle- 
fields of  tomorrow.  And  looking  at  your  materials,  some  of  the 
things  that  are  listed  under  science  and  technology,  advanced  com- 
bat and  soldier  systems,  aircraft  propulsion,  unmanned  systems, 
space  communications,  some  of  the  things  that  currently  are  touted 
as  the  most  important  in  looking  at  the  modernization  of  our 
forces,  I  was  wondering,  your  concerns  about  the  cumulative  effect 
of  not  meeting  this  goal  and  whether  or  not  you  have  a  plan  to 
catch  up. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Well,  Congressman  Turner,  it  is — I  suppose 
it  is  unknowable,  in  this  sense.  I  was  in  the  pharmaceutical  busi- 
ness for  a  number  of  years  and  in  the  electronics  business.  And 
people — we  would  look  at  the  research  and  development  budgets  as 
a  percentage  of  revenue,  sales,  and  try  to  see — try  to  stay  up  at  a 
certain  level,  never  knowing  if  the  dollars  you  put  in  there  will  ac- 
tually produce  a  product  that  will  create  value  but  knowing  that 
if  you  didn't  do  it  you  were  eating  your  seed  corn  because  all  your 
other  products  were  getting  older  and  you  were  not  at  least  trjdng 
to  get  that  new  information  and  the  new  products  that  could  help 
save  lives. 

The  same  thing  is  true  here.  It  is  a  guess  what  that  number 
ought  to  be.  I  mean  the  three  percent  is  pulled  out  of  midair.  But 
over  time  I  have  got  to  believe  that  we  do  misserve  our  country  if 
we  don't  find  ways  to  see  that  we  invest  something  like  on  a  regu- 
lar basis.  And  you  are  right,  there  is  cumulative  effect  to  under- 
investing.  It  is  just  like  housing.  You  underinvest  long  enough  and 
you  are  going  to  end  up  with  a  growing  percentage  of  your  total 
housing  that  is  substandard.  And  if  you  underinvest  in  research 
and  development,  or  in  this  case,  S&T,  we  call  it  in  the  govern- 
ment, in  the  Pentagon,  we  are  going  to  end  up  with  having  under- 


54 

invested  in  a  way  that  we  are  going  to  end  up  with  sub — not  sub- 
standard, but  capabihties  that  are  not  on  the  leading  edge  and  that 
are  less  than  they  ought  to  be. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Congressman,  if  I  could  only  add  one  point,  which 
is,  of  course  the  issue  is  really  three  percent  of  what.  Two  years 
ago  we  were  somewhat  lower  than  we  are  today,  but  that  was  2.6 
whatever,  2.67  of  a  budget  of  331  billion.  Now  we  are  at  2.69  out 
of  a  budget  of  50  billion  more,  give  or  take.  So  the  pie  has  grown 
and  the  absolute  number  is  over  $10  billion  now,  and  by  2007  we 
will  be  over  11  billion. 

So  there  is  progress  even  if  we  are  not  there  yet.  I  don't  want 
you  to  walk  away  with  the  impression  that  we  are  not  putting 
more  and  more  money  in,  even  as  we  put  more  money  into  develop- 
ment, say  the  missile  defense  area,  where  now  we  are  putting 
money  into  development  because  we  are  much  more  on  the  way  to- 
ward actually  producing  systems  that  we  will  field. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  When  the  supplemental  comes  up,  the 
budget  will  be  higher  and  the  investment  in  S&T,  therefore,  will 
produce  a  still  lower  percentage,  although  the  dollar  amount  will 
stay  the  same. 

Mr.  Turner  of  Ohio.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  And  the  gentlelady  from 
Guam,  Ms.  Bordallo.  And  is  that  the  correct  pronunciation? 

Ms.  Bordallo.  As  long  as  it  is  not  "bordello" 

The  Chairman.  Believe  me,  it  never  will  be. 

Ms.  Bordallo.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Secretary. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Mr.  Chairman,  can  you  explain  to  Mr.  Taylor 
why  that  is  funny  to  some  people  in  the  room? 

Ms.  Bordallo.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  Mr. 
Secretary,  General  Myers,  and  I,  too,  would  like  to  join  my  col- 
leagues by  sajdng  thank  you.  It  is  a  real  delight  to  be  on  this  com- 
mittee and  very,  very  important  for  the  Territory  that  I  represent 
and  that  is  Guam. 

I  am  a  new  Member,  and  I  am  afraid  I  am  quite  persistent.  I 
have  been  asking  at  every  briefing  about  the  North  Korean  situa- 
tion and  Congressman  Skelton  opened  up  this  hearing  by  alluding 
to  the  North  Korean  situation.  It  is  my  belief,  Mr.  Secretary,  that 
the  Territory  of  Guam  is  a  key  component  to  defend  U.S.  interests 
and  our  allies  in  the  Pacific  region.  Given  the  number  of  important 
and  competing  military  responsibilities  Guam  is  tasked  with,  it 
often  seems  that  there  is  no  clear  strategic  vision  for  Guam's  fu- 
ture, where  thousands  of  loyal  Americans  live.  Also,  it  is  unclear 
what  protection,  if  any,  Guam  would  have  under  a  national  missile 
defense  system  even  though  it  is  just  within  the  range  of  a  North 
Korean  missile  attack.  During  the  Pentagon  hearings,  the  brief- 
ings, I  heard  no  mention  of  any  activity  going  on  in  the  Pacific 
Command  other  than  the  normal  activities.  I  would  like  to  work 
with  you  to  craft  a  strategic  vision  for  the  future  of  the  military 
on  Guam  and  would  like  to  begin  by  asking  you  what  you  perceive 
as  Guam's  role,  given  the  increase  in  tensions  on  the  Korean  Pe- 
ninsula. Perhaps  the  General  could  also  answer,  and  also  to  ask 
you  is  that  role  reflected  in  the  budget  that  you  have  presented  to 
us  today? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Is  what  role? 


55 

Ms.  BORDALLO.  The  role  of  Guam's  activity. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Oh,  absolutely.  I  mean,  Guam  is  important. 
It  is  important  in  and  of  itself.  It  is  important  to  the  United  States 
military,  as  you  know  well  from  your  background.  I  would  say  that 
the  range,  the  ranges  of  North  Korean  ballistic  missiles  are  in- 
creasing over  time,  and  today  they  cover  not  just  Guam,  but  they 
cover  our  friends  in  Japan,  they  include  portions  of  the  United 
States,  and  because  of  imperfect  knowledge  about  the  ranges,  one 
has  to  anticipate  that  they  either  have  or  will  shortly  have  the  abil- 
ity to  range  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  United  States  given  the  tests 
they  did  with  a  two-stage  with  a  kick-motor  some  time  back,  I  be- 
lieve it  was  the  Taepodong  II. 

I  don't  know  quite  how  to  answer  your  question  because  I  don't 
think  of  Guam  as  something  that  is  separate  from  the  United 
States  or  separate  from  Northeast  Asia.  It  is — when  we  make  our 
arrangements  for  how  we  want  to  deter  and  defend  our  country,  we 
do  it  forward.  We  don't  do  it  back,  thinking  we  should  protect  the 
border  of  California  or  the  East  Coast.  We  do  it  forward.  And  we 
do  it  forward  for  a  reason,  because  we  believe  it  is  very  much  in 
our  country's  interest  to  deter  and  defend  in  that  way. 

We  do  a  great  many  things.  We  have  got  significant  investments 
in  Asia,  not  just  Northeast  Asia,  but  in  Korea  and  Japan  and 
Guam  and  in  other  locations.  We  have  increasing  capabilities  in 
the  southern  portion  of  that  region,  and  we  consider  it  enormously 
important  and  certainly  this  budget  reflects  that. 

Ms.  BoRDALLO.  Perhaps,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  could  rephrase  the 
question.  During  the  BRAC  closures,  Guam  took  a  hit  and  we 
closed  major  bases  there.  I  never  could  understand  that  because  I 
realize  that,  strategically,  we  are  very  important  to  the  United 
States  being  so  far  away  and  so  far — so  close  to  some  of  the  trou- 
bled areas.  And  what  I  mean  to  say  is  we  don't  see  that  much  in- 
creased activity.  There  is  a  little.  We  have  some  of  the  bombers 
coming  through.  We  have  the  nuclear  subs  that  are  being  stationed 
there.  But  I  don't  see  that  much  increased  activity  inasmuch  as 
Korea  is  such  a  real  threat. 

General  MYERS.  When  I  served  in  the  Pacific  as  Commander  of 
the  Pacific  Air  Forces,  you  are  quite  right.  That  was — I  think  I  got 
there  just  after  the  BRAC  or  while  it  was  being  implemented,  and 
I  think  the  strategic  vision  for  Guam  at  that  point  was  pretty  much 
as  you  described  it.  But  I  would  say  since  the  late  1990s,  and  par- 
ticularly with  Secretary  Rumsfeld  and  the  team  now,  that  the  stra- 
tegic value  of  Guam  is  very,  very  high,  and  we  have  put  millions 
into  the  fuel  infrastructure  into  Guam,  as  you  are  probably  aware. 

Ms.  BORDALLO.  Yes. 

General  Myers.  We  are  putting,  I  think,  millions  into  infrastruc- 
ture so  we  can  receive  bomber  elements  because  of  its  strategic  lo- 
cation, and  not  just  for  Asia  but  it  could  be  for  other  parts  the 
world,  as  well.  I  think  you  will  see  in  this  budget  other  things  that 
are  going  to  happen  good  for  Guam,  and  we  talked  about  the  sub- 
marines being  stationed  there,  as  well.  So  I  think  from  where  we 
were  5,  6,  7  years  ago  to  where  we  are  today  that  it  is  almost  a 
180  degree  swap-out  with  how  we  view  Guam  and  its  strategic  im- 
portance to  the  United  States  as  part  of  the  United  States. 


56 

Ms.  BORDALLO.  Very  good.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  hear,  that 
we  are  behind  it  and  the  buildup  in  Guam,  and  that  is  what  my 
constituents  are  concerned  with  because,  you  know,  we  want  to 
know  that  we  are  being  protected  and  I  think  pretty  generally  you 
answered  that. 

General  Myers.  Absolutely.  In  terms  of  protection,  one  of  the 
things  that  the  Secretary  has  done  along  with  the  Department  in 
looking  at  missile  defense  has  broadened  the  scope.  Once  we  were 
out  from  under  the  restrictions  of  the  Antiballistic  Missile  (ABM) 
Treaty  we  were  able  to  broaden  the  scope  of  what  we  could  do.  And 
one  of  the  things  we  can  do,  of  course,  is  look  at  the  seabased  com- 
ponent of  missile  defense.  And  I  would  think  that  would  have  a  lot 
of  applicability  if  you  think  about  defending  places  like  Guam.  And 
while  there  is  a  long  way  to  go,  I  think  we  are  on  the  right  path 
to  address  those  sorts  of  issues. 

Ms.  BoRDALLO.  Well,  thank  you  very  much.  It  makes  me  feel 
very  good. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentlelady.  And  the  gentleman  from 
Minnesota,  the  distinguished  gentleman,  Mr.  Kline. 

Mr.  Kline.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  see  we  are  starting  to 
get  the  competition  of  competing  committees  here,  and  unfortu- 
nately I  am  going  to  have  to  leave  in  just  a  minute.  But  I  wanted 
to  thank  the  Secretary  and  the  General  and  Dr.  Zakheim  for  com- 
ing, for  your  patience  today  and  for  the  thoroughness  of  your  an- 
swers. I  toiled  in  an  earlier  life  for  a  number  of  years  in  preparing 
DOD  budgets,  so  I  know  that  there  are  hundreds  or,  more  cor- 
rectly, thousands  of  men  and  women  not  only  in  the  Pentagon  but 
all  over  who  put  in  hours  and  hours  and  weeks  and  weeks;  in  fact, 
some  of  them  do  it  year  round  all  the  time,  and  you  have  teams 
already  preparing  the  2005  budget.  So  thank  you  very  much.  It  is 
terrific  work. 

I  am  excited  about  many  of  the  things  you  are  working  on  trans- 
formation and  I  can't  wait  till  we  get  into  the  details  of  how  you 
are  going  to  shorten  that  acquisition  span  and  streamline  things, 
get  more  flexibility.  I  know  that  many  of  your  predecessors  toiled 
and  tilted  at  those  windmills  a  number  of  times,  so  I  wish  you 
great  good  luck  and  I  hope  that  we  can  be  an  active  part  of  that. 

I  simply  have  one  question  of  the  many  that  are  bubbling  around 
in  my  head.  You  have  mentioned  a  number  of  times,  Mr.  Secretary, 
that  you  think  it  is — we  ought  to  be  able  to  do  something  about  the 
fact  that  men  and  women,  when  they  reach  the  ripe  old  age  of  45 
or  47,  I  think  in  your  last  example,  they  shouldn't  be  walking  out 
the  door.  And  while  I  am  sure  many  of  us  would  share  that  senti- 
ment, I  am  wondering  how  that  can  be  done,  that  we  can  keep  peo- 
ple without  literally  aging  the  force  and  perhaps  impacting  on  the 
morale  of  those  younger  men  and  women. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  You  are  right.  That  is  an  important  consid- 
eration, and  it  is  something  that  would  have  to  be  done  very  care- 
fully, and  it  would  be  only  the  people  who  wanted  to  stay.  There 
wouldn't  be  any  implication  that  people  had  to  stay  longer.  Dr.  Chu 
briefed  me  last  week  on  a  model  that  he  thinks  will  work.  He  ei- 
ther briefed  or  is  going  to  brief  General  Myers  on  that. 

General  Myers.  He  has  briefed  me  on  that,  as  well. 


57 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Within  the  last  day  or  two.  He  then  is 
going  to  go  around  to  the  Services  and  others  in  the  Department, 
and  we  would  be  happy  to  have  you  get  briefed  at  some  point.  We 
have  not  concluded  it  is  right  because  we  are  still  testing  it  in  the 
marketplace,  so  to  speak.  I  have  always  believed  that  he  who  tears 
down  what  is  has  the  responsibility  of  recommending  something 
better,  and  it  is  sufficiently  complex  that  I  want  to  make  darn  sure 
we  have  something  better.  But  it  is — and  it  is  not  going  to  be  dra- 
matic. But  it  will  incrementally  alter  it  in  a  way  that  I  believe  is 
favorable.  It  could  affect  both  tour  lengths  and  numbers  of  years 
of  service  for  those  who  prefer  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Kline.  Thank  you,  sir.  I  am  really  looking  forward  to  seeing 
the  details  of  that  and  I  am  looking  forward  to  talking  with  Dr. 
Chu  and  others.  And,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  yield  the  balance  of  my 
time. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  thank  the  gentleman,  and  you  are  the 
first  one  to  do  that,  believe  me. 

Mr.  Kline.  I  want  you  to  remember  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  And  my  colleague  from  San  Diego,  the  distin- 
guished gentlelady,  Ms.  Davis. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  thank 
you  for  being  here.  Thank  you  for  being  here  for  such  a  long  time. 
I  just  wanted  to  go  back  to  one  of  the  issues  and  perhaps  others 
talked  about  this  more,  but  the  end  strength  and  the  numbers  of 
10,000  in  the  Navy,  in  the  naval  forces.  Can  you  tell  me  where — 
how  do  you  get  to  that  number?  Where  does  that  come  from? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  We  didn't  get  to  that  number.  It  was  there 
when  I  arrived.  And  what  happens  is  a  process  where  we  can  al- 
most continuously,  but  at  least  periodically,  ask  ourselves  what  are 
the  capabilities  we  believe  we  need  to  execute  the  defense  strategy 
that  is  approved  by  the  President  of  the  United  States.  So  we  then 
take  that  strategy,  look  at  the  forces  that  are  needed,  and  then 
look  at  the  people  that  are  needed  to  man  those  forces.  It  is  con- 
stantly changing. 

If  you  take  a  ship,  the  new  carrier  that  we  are  proposing  in  this 
budget,  it  is  going  to  be  able  to  function  with  much  greater  capa- 
bilities and  lethality,  with  800  less  people  than  the  carrier  right  be- 
fore. Now,  that  is  the  kind  of  change  that  occurs.  Simultaneously, 
there  is  a  change  going  the  other  way.  We  just  increased  by  1,893 
the  number  of — we  are  in  the  process  of  doing  it — special  operators. 
So  we  constantly  have  these  puts  and  takes.  And  the  other  thing 
that  is  happening  out  there,  the  world  changes.  So 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Well,  I  think  one  of  the  concerns  that 
was  raised  is  about  the  reserves  and  how  you  balance  that,  and  so 
I  think  that  was  part  of  my  question,  as  well,  and  I  know  that  you 
spent  a  lot  of  time  with  that  already.  But,  you  know,  how  do  we 
get  to  those  numbers,  and  if  we  are  looking  to — if  we  don't  feel  that 
we  want  to  engage  the  large  number  of  reserves,  then  perhaps  at 
some  point  maybe  that  number  changes  as  well. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  There  are  trade-offs  there.  To  the  extent 
you  may  want  to  take  an  activity  from  the  reserves  and  have  it  on 
active  duty,  those  numbers  might  change  in  some  way.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  demand  for  homeland  security  and  the  role  of  the 


58 

Guard  obviously  is  going  to  be  terribly  important  in  the  period 
ahead.  You  want  to  say  something? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Well,  just  specifically  on  the  10,000  you  asked 
about,  that  is  directly  related  to  the  ships  that  are  being  retired. 
You  know,  we  are  retiring  about  26  ships,  I  believe,  the  Spruance- 
class  and  others,  and  so  that  is  where  it  comes  from. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Okay.  So  even  though  we  are  going 
to  fund  new  ships,  but  we  still  have  the  net  gain. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Well,  again  you  have  the  new  ships  coming  much 
later  and,  as  the  Secretary  just  said,  a  lot  of  them  will  need — that 
is  one  of  the  attractions  of  these  new  ships,  that  they  do  need  fewer 
people.  They  are  much  more  people  efficient. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  And  we  actually  have  seen  that  in 
San  Diego. 

If  I  could  just  very  quickly,  one  of  the  areas  of  expertise  that  I 
think  the  military  needs  more  and  more  is  language  capability. 
And  there  is  no,  you  know,  line  item  for  that  per  se  in  the  budget. 
One  of  the  things — and  if  you  can  find  this  number  for  me,  I  would 
be  very  curious  to  see  what  have  we  spent  in  the  past  in  language 
acquisition  and  training  and  what  are  we  spending  today. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  And  I  would  add  a  third  question,  and 
what  are  we  spending  it  on.  Are  we  spending  it  on  languages  that 
were  historically  interesting  and  important  or'  are  we  spending  it 
on  languages  that  are  currently  and  prosp>ectively  interesting  and 
important?  And  the  answer  is  we  need  to  improve. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  One  suggestion  perhaps,  and  people 
I  am  sure  have  looked  at  this,  is  that  there  may  be  capabilities 
among  the  reserve  that  could  be  greater  utilized  than  in  the  active 
military  and  perhaps,  I  don't  know  if  we  are  using  that  as  well  as 
we  could,  but 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  We  are  using  it.  I  don't  know  if  it  is  as  well 
as  we  could.  But  we  are  definitely  using  the  language  capabilities 
in  the  reserves.  I  have  been  to  locations  around  this  country  where 
person  after  person  doing  language  work  is  a  reservist. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentlelady.  And,  Mr.  Secretary,  we 
have  got  just 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  I  reserve  the  balance  of  my  time,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  got  a  few  members  left  and  I  wanted 
to  know  if — how  you  are  looking  on  time? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  think  it  would  be  unfair  to  not  allow 
questions  from  the  individuals  who  have  not  yet  had  a  crack  at — 
particularly  at  Dick  Myers  or  Dov  Zakheim. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  we  have  been  letting  Zakheim  escape  un- 
scathed here.  We  do  have  to  go  after  him.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Gingrey,  the  fine  gentleman  from  Georgia,  you  are  recog- 
nized. 

Dr.  Gingrey.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Secretary,  General 
Myers,  Mr.  Zakheim,  first  of  all,  I  deeply  appreciate  the  fact  that 
you  have  been  here  over  three  hours  and  to  let  a  freshmen  member 
go  to  another  meeting  and  come  back  and  ask  a  question  I  really 
appreciate.  In  fact,  it  was  probably  three  hours  ago  when  you  pro- 
posed or  suggested  that  it  would  be  nice  if  the  Department  of  De- 


59 

fense  could  get  a  budget  for  a  two-year  period  of  time  rather  than 
one  year,  and  I  think  that  is  a  great  idea.  I  don't  know  how  dif- 
ficult that  would  be,  maybe  about  as  difficult  as  it  would  be  for  you 
to  help  us  get  four-year  terms  for  House  Members.  But  I  would  be 
glad  to  work  on  that  two-year  cycle  in  exchange  for  that. 

I  wanted  to — actually  I  wanted  to  ask  General  Myers  a  question 
in  regard  to  the  FA-22.  Now,  I  represent  an  area  of  Georgia  where 
the  assembly  of  the  FA-22  occurs  at  Lockheed  Martin  Marietta, 
and  I  was  very  interested  in  your  comments  about  that.  We  are 
pleased  in  going  forward,  I  hope  that  that  $5.2  billion  will  remain 
in  the — will  be  funded  for  the  F-22  program.  But  you  mentioned, 
General  Myers,  that  there  are  probably  or  might  be  a  mix  of  high- 
end  fighters,  the  F-22,  and  the  older  fighters,  and  I  am  just  won- 
dering going  forward  at  what  point  will  we  mothball  all  of  those 
older  fighters  if  you  will  and  have  this  joint  strike  fighter,  F-22. 

General  Myers.  Well,  what  I  was  referring  to,  Congressman, 
was,  you  know  the  concept  of  having  some  high-end  fighters,  some 
that  are  a  little  more  capable  and  then  some  less  capable  and  pre- 
sumably less  expensive.  There  was  a  concept  that  I  think  Secretary 
Rumsfeld,  I  think,  worked  on  when  he  was  Secretary  of  Defense 
the  first  time,  and  I  don't  mean  to  imply  we  are  going  to  keep  some 
of  the  older  fighters  like  the  F-15s  around.  The  F-22— FA-22  is 
programmed  to  replace  the  F-15,  and  then  we  will  bring  on  the 
joint  strike  fighter  to  replace  the  F-16s  and  A-lOs  and  some  of 
those  aircraft  over  time,  and  that  will  go  out  well  into  the  next  dec- 
ade or  go  beyond  this  decade. 

As  you  know,  the  Joint  Strike  Fighter  doesn't  really  get  up  and 
running  as  it  is  currently  programmed  until  the  end  of  this  decade, 
and  then  it  will  go  for  quite  some  time  as  it  replaces  the  older  air- 
craft in  both  the  Navy  and  the  Marine  Corp  and  the  Air  Force,  and 
that  is  the  concept. 

Dr.  GiNGREY.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Appreciate  that.  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Bradley  [presiding].  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Gingrey. 
Obviously,  I  am  pinch  hitting  for  Chairman  Hunter  and  would  ask 
if  Mr.  Alexander  from  Louisiana  has  a  question. 

Mr.  Alexander.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Secretary,  a  little 
earlier,  the  Chairman  said  something  about  the  fact  that  the  B-1 
fleet  might  be  cut  by  one-third,  from  90  down  to  60.  Yet  your  mate- 
rial says  that  it  will  be  cut  by  60.  Which  one  is  correct?  And  what- 
ever is  correct,  will  that  money  that  will  be  saved  be  put  back  into 
the  B-1  program? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  It  is  90  to  60,  and  there  is  no  question  but 
that  the  money  will  be  used  to  upgrade  that  weapons  system  so 
that  it  will  be  more  capable  and  be  more  capable  for  a  longer  pe- 
riod. 

Mr.  Alexander.  Okay.  It  says  in  your  budget  that  it  will  be  cut 
by  60. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  I  don't  know.  When  you  say  "in  the  budg- 
et," if  it  says  that,  it  should  say  cut  to  60  and  not  by  60,  and  we 
appreciate  that  heads  up. 

Mr.  Alexander.  Okay. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  That  is  an  important  typo. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  That  isn't  in  my  testimony,  I  hope. 


60 

Mr.  Alexander.  It  is  on  page  three  in  this 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  What  is  that?  That  is  not  our  document 
inat  looks  hke  it  is  a  document  from  the  committee 

Mr.  Alexander.  Well,  I  am  just  reading  what  was  put  before  us 
It  just  says 

^^^Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Which  letterhead  is  it?  Whose  letterhead  is 

Mr.  Alexander.  It  is  on  the  committee. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Thank  goodness.  We  have  dodged  a  bullet 
Mr.  Bradley.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Alexander.  Mr.  Franks 
Mr.  Franks.  Mr.  Secretary  and  General  Myers,  I  am  the  last  guy 
?ir  1,  T  ^^-  -J  ^"^^  y^^  ^^^®  had  a  long— oh,  there's  one  more? 
Well  1  am  still  going  to  do  the  same  thing  here.  I  am  just  going 
to  take  the  privilege  of  the  moment  to  thank  you  earnestly  and  to 
echo  the  appreciation  of  this  committee  for  your  magnificent  com- 
mitment to  America  and  human  freedom.  And  with  that,  I  am  iust 
going  to  yield  back  my  time. 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Thank  you  very  much.  We  appreciate  that. 
Mr  Bradley.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Franks.  And  finally  to  Mr.  Israel 
Thank  you. 

Mr.  Israel.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  General,  it  is  a  pleasure 
to  be  here  with  you.  I  am  a  new  member  of  this  committee  but 
served  in  the  107th  Congress,  and  in  that  Congress  was  an  early 
bipartisan  supporter,  Mr.  Secretary,  of  your  view  on  Iraq  and  was 
very  proud  to  have  worked  with  you  on  that  bipartisan  basis  on 
such  a  critical  issue.  I  will  be  very  brief 

I  could  not  agree  more  with  your  consistent  and  ongoing  empha- 
sis on  transformation.  My  district  is  on  Long  Island,  35  miles  away 
from  what  was  the  World  Trade  Center.  My  constituents  under- 
stand that  we  are  fighting  a  new  war,  that  the  nature  of  risk  and 
the  nature  of  threat  is  changing,  and  so  my  position  on  this  com- 
mittee I  hope  IS  important  to  them,  and  I  just  want  to  offer  to  work 
very  closely  with  you,  continuing  on  a  bipartisan  basis,  on  issues 
hke  the  Army  Objective  Force,  the  Navy  Expeditionary  Strike 
I^orce,  the  Air  Force  Air  and  Space  Expeditionary  Force,  and  would 
appreciate  it  if  you  could  arrange  for  a  briefing  so  that  you  can 
help  me  go  through  this  learning  curve  and  so  that  I  can  continue 
to  be  an  effective  bipartisan  supporter  of  your  Department  And 
with  that,  I  yield  back  my  time. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Israel.  And  the  Chair 
at  this  time  would  recognize  the  member  from  Missouri,  Mr  Skel- 
ton. 

Mr  Skelton.  I  just  want  to  say  a  special  thanks  to  each  of  you 
Mr.  Secretary,  for  your  patience  and  for  your  excellent  presen- 
tation. In  a  world  of  peace  you  have  immense  challenges,  and  with 
the  war  on  terrorism,  the  Iraqi  situation,  with  North  Korea  coming 
up  on  the  horizon,  your  hands  are  more  than  full,  so  we  wish  you 
well.  Thank  you  for  being  with  us  today. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Thank  you  very  much,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Thank  you  very  much.  On  behalf  of  Chairman 
Hunter,  I  would  like  to  thank  Dr.  Zakheim,  General  Myers  and 
Secretary  Rumsfeld  for  your  patience,  for  your  commitment  to 
America,  and  the  entire  committee  wishes  you  Godspeed  with  your 
very  important  work.  Thank  you. 


61 


The  committee  stands  adjourned.  Thank  you,  everyone. 
[Whereupon,  at  5:30  p.m.,  the  committee  was  adjourned.] 


APPENDIX 

February  5,  2003 


PREPARED  STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED  FOR  THE  RECORD 

February  5,  2003 


OPENING  REMARKS  OF  CHAIRMAN  DUNCAN  HUNTER 

Secretary  of  Defense  FY04  Defense  Posture  Hearing 

Wednesday,  February  5,  2003 

Today,  the  committee  meets  to  receive  testimony  on  the 
Administration's  defense  budget  request  for  fiscal  year  2004. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  welcome  back  Secretary  of  Defense  Donald 
Rumsfeld,  General  Myers  and  Dr.  Zakheim. 

We  have  a  lot  of  ground  to  cover  today  and  with  our  slightly 
enlarged  complement  of  61  members,  I  want  to  make  sure  we 
reserve  as  much  time  as  possible  for  individual  members  to  engage 
the  witnesses. 

Mr.  Secretary,  this  is  the  third  time  you  have  appeared  before 
the  committee  to  present  a  Bush  Administration  budget  proposal. 
But  I  believe  it  is  fair  to  say  that  this  may  be  the  first  budget  that 
fully  reflects  the  priorities  of  the  Administration  across  the  board. 
We  will  spend  the  better  part  of  the  next  several  months  reviewing 


(67) 


68 

and  debating  these  priorities  and  through  this  process  look  forward 
to  arriving  at  a  common  view  on  the  best  approach  to  provide  the 
strongest  possible  defense  program  for  the  nation. 

This  said,  Mr.  Secretary,  the  defense  program  being  put 
forward  presents  many  of  us  who  have  long  worked  in  the  trenches 
for  a  strong  defense  with  a  series  of  dilemmas. 

First,  you  deserve  tremendous  credit  for  sharply  reversing  the 
decade-long  decline  in  defense  spending  that  characterized  the 
previous  administration.  However,  the  defense  budget  hole  carved 
out  during  the  1990s  will  take  more  than  two  year's  worth  of 
significant  increases  to  reverse.  Thus,  I  am  concerned  that  with  the 
modest  4  percent  increase  proposed  for  this  year  and  beyond,  we 
are  calling  it  quits  before  the  job  is  done.  We  need  to  sustain 
significant  defense  budget  increases  for  at  least  a  few  more  years 
in  order  to  begin  to  buy  back  a  decade  of  systemic  damage  and 
disinvestment  across  the  defense  program.  Only  then  can  we 
afford  to  flatten  out  the  defense  investment  curve  over  the  long 
haul. 


69 

Second,  notwithstanding  marginal  increases  in  the  key 
modernization  accounts,  we  are  still  lagging  far  behind  what  is 
necessary  to  support  a  modem,  sustainable  and  sufficient  combat 
force  over  the  long  term.  The  proposed  $72  billion  for 
procurement  falls  far  short  of  what  has  been  broadly  identified  as 
necessary  level  of  reinvestment  to  sustain  the  current  force. 

Further,  the  proposed  budget  recommends  retiring  or 
canceling  programs  in  virtually  every  key  combat  category  to 
carve  out  the  resources  to  reinvest  in  "transformational"  future 
systems.  I  have  never  been  one  to  argue  that  we  should  not  cancel 
or  retire  systems  that  have  truly  outlived  their  useful  life  or 
purpose,  but,  starting  with  the  Air  Force  decision  to  retire  a  third  of 
the  B-1  bomber  fleet,  we  continue  to  cut  into  the  very  foundation 
of  our  conventional  combat  power  solely  to  free  up  funds  for  other 
needed  initiatives.  Simply  put,  Mr.  Secretary,  we  should  not  be 
forced  to  incur  such  near  term  risk  in  terms  of  diminished  combat 
capability  in  order  to  invest  in  the  future  solely  because  we  have 
not  properly  resourced  the  defense  budget. 


70 

Final  point.  The  Department  will  soon  approach  the  halfway 
point  for  the  current  fiscal  year  and  still  has  received  no  additional 
resources  for  the  billions  of  dollars  in  costs  associated  with  the 
ongoing  war  on  terrorism,  homeland  security  support  and  generally 
increased  pace  of  operations  since  September  11.  This  committee 
has  over  the  years  seen  the  lasting  damage  done  when  the 
Department  is  asked  to  pay  for  significant  military  operations  "out 
of  hide"  with  the  promise  of  being  made  whole  some  time  later  in 
the  year. 

We  know  that  once  the  services  start  canceling  or  deferring 
key  maintenance  and  training  activities  to  pay  these  bills,  you 
never  make  up  these  lost  opportunities  and  it  invariably  results  in  a 
downward  spiral  in  overall  readiness.  I  realize  that  I  am  preaching 
to  the  choir  a  bit  here,  but  given  the  enormity  of  the  bills  the 
Department  faces  during  this  current  year,  it  is  important  to  stress 
the  point  once  again  that  early  action  should  be  taken  to  replenish 
operational  accounts  as  soon  as  possible  and  thus  avoid  the 
familiar  negative  effects  of  operating  this  way. 


71 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  look  forward  to  your  testimony  today  and 
trust  you  will  fully  address  these  concerns  in  your  presentation  and 
through  the  continuing  dialogue  that  you  will  sustain  with  the 
committee  as  this  process  moves  forward. 

Let  me  now  recognize  the  committee's  ranking  Democrat, 
Mr.  Skelton,  for  any  remarks  he  may  wish  to  make. 

(Following  Mr.  Skclton's  remarks] 

The  entirety  of  our  witnesses'  prepared  statements  will  be 
entered  into  the  record. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld,  the  floor  is  yours. 


72 

Opening  Statement  for  The  Honorable  Ike  Skelton  (D-MO), 

Ranking  Member,  Committee  on  Armed  Services,  U.S.  House  of 

Representatives 

Posture  Hearing  on  FY  2004  Defense  Budget  Request 

February  5, 2003 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  At  the  outset  let  me  say  that  I  am 
honored  to  have  the  opportunity  to  work  with  my  good  friend  and  now 
chairman,  Duncan  Hunter,  in  the  1 08"*  Congress. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld,  General  Myers,  Dr.  Zakheim:  thank  you  all 
for  being  with  us  today.  We  meet  at  a  dangerous  time.  Secretary 
Powell's  presentation  to  the  Security  Council  this  morning  was  sobering 
and  demonstrates  the  need  to  disarm  Iraq.  I  commend  the  administration 
for  working  within  the  Security  Council  and  urge  you  to  continue  doing 
so.  If  we  must  act  militarily,  it  is  better  for  us  to  fight  under  Security 
Council  sanction  and  with  the  broadest  coalition  possible. 


73 

At  the  same  time,  we  face  a  deepening  crisis  on  the  Korean 
peninsula  and  continuing  operations  around  the  world  in  the  war  on 
terrorism.  This  nation  is  unique  in  its  global  leadership  and  that 
leadership  means  being  able  to  handle  multiple  conflicts  simultaneously. 
The  administration's  national  military  strategy  acknowledges  reality  this 
and  our  planning  and  budgeting  must  too. 

I  applaud  the  overall  spending  level  for  defense  in  the  President's 
request.  There  is  much  to  like  in  this  budget  including— continued  pay 
raises  for  our  troops  now  deployed  more  than  ever,  the  investment  of 
nearly  $25  billion  dollars  in  transformational  technologies  and  weapons 
programs,  and  the  purchase  of  seven  new  ships.  But  our  global 
leadership  role  at  a  time  of  multiple  crises  raises  questions  as  well. 

First,  the  Department's  funding  request  of  $380  billion  does  not 
include  the  cost  of  operations  that  might  be  undertaken  for  the  global 
war  on  terrorism  or  for  in  Iraq.  I  know  how  difficult  it  is  to  estimate 


74 
what  future  operations  will  cost,  but  Congress  could  use  your  best 
estimate  of  what  the  full  defense  bill  might  be  for  Fiscal  Year  2004. 

Second,  global  leadership  means  global  presence.  The  visibility  of 
our  troops  and  our  ships  around  the  world  both  reassures  our  friends  and 
deters  our  adversaries.  While  I  am  pleased  with  the  shipbuilding  plan  in 
this  budget,  decommissionings  will  bring  the  Navy  fleet  size  will  drop  to 
291by  Fiscal  Year  2006,  a  level  we  haven't  hit  since  1916.    I  know  that 
our  ships  have  far  greater  capabilities  now,  the  geography  of  the  oceans 
is  unchanged.  U.S.  leadership  depends  on  the  best  naval  combat 
capabilities,  but  also  on  our  presence  throughout  the  world. 

Lastly  I  return  to  the  theme  of  end-strength.  Our  global  operations 
and  the  looming  threats  in  Iraq  and  North  Korea  are  putting  great  strain 
on  our  troops.  The  Navy  requests  a  cut  of  10,000  sailors  to  go  along  with 
the  declining  fleet  size.  Furthermore,  the  increases  in  special  operations 
forces  may  well  come  from  existing  Army  billets.  Clearly  we  need  more 
special  operations  troops  but  these  should  come  from  an  end-strength 


75 
increase  not  by  cannibalizing  from  Army  forces  already  stretched  thin 
by  a  relentless  pace  of  operations. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  stand  ready  to  work  with  you  on  all  these 
priorities.  Making  trade-offs  at  a  time  of  war  is  extremely  difficult  even 
within  a  defense  budget  of  this  size.  But  the  choices  made  must  enhance 
and  not  place  at  risk  our  global  leadership.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 


76 


TESTIMONY  FOR  SECRETARY  OF  DEFENSE 

DONALD  RUMSFELD 

HOUSE/SENATE  ARMED  SERVICES  COMMITTEES 

2004  DEFENSE  BUDGET  REQUEST 

FEBRUARY  5  &  6,  2003 


INTRODUCTION 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Menibers  of  the  Committee,  thanl<  you  for  this  opportunity  to  update  the 
Committee  on  our  progress  in  transforming  the  Department  of  Defense  for  the  21^'  century  and  to 
discuss  the  President's  budget  for  FY  2004-2009. 

President  Bush  vowed  that,  on  taking  office,  he  would  order  "an  immediate,  comprehensive  review 
of  our  military — the  structure  of  its  forces,  the  state  of  its  strategy,  the  priorities  of  its  procurement." 
He  warned  of  new  dangers — of  "barbarism  emboldened  by  technology,"  the  proliferation  of 
"weapons  of  mass  destruction...  car  bombers  and  plutonium  merchants  ...cyber  terrorists...  and 
unbalanced  dictators."  To  deal  with  these  threats,  he  said,  he  would  give  his  team  at  the 
Department  of  Defense  "a  broad  mandate  to  challenge  the  status  quo  and  envision  a  new 
architecture  of  American  defense  for  decades  to  come." 

The  goal,  he  said,  would  be  "to  move  beyond  marginal  improvements — to  replace  existing 
programs  with  new  technologies  and  strategies."  Doing  this,  he  said,  "'will  require  spending  more — 
and  spending  more  wisely." 

Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  past  two  years,  we  have  pursued  the  goals  he  set  out.  We  have: 

•  Fashioned  a  new  defense  strategy. 

•  Replaced  the  decade-old  two  Major  Theater  War  approach  with  a  new  approach  to  sizing 
our  forces  that  allows  us  to  provide  for  homeland  defense,  undertake  a  major  regional 
conflict  and  win  decisively,  including  occupying  a  country  and  changing  the  regime  if 
necessary,  simultaneously  swiftly  defeat  another  aggressor  in  another  theater,  and  in 
addition  have  the  capability  of  conducting  a  number  of  lesser  contingencies. 

•  Developed  a  new  approach  to  balancing  risks  that  takes  into  account  not  just  the  risks  to 
immediate  war  plans,  but  also  the  risks  to  people  and  transformation. 

•  Reorganized  the  Department  to  better  focus  our  space  activities. 

•  Adopted  a  new  Unified  Command  Plan,  which  establishes  the  new  Northern  Command  to 
better  defend  the  homeland;  a  Joint  Forces  Command  that  focuses  on  transformation;  and  a 
new  Strategic  Command  responsible  for  early  warning  of.  and  defense  against,  missile 
attack  and  the  conduct  of  long-range  attacks. 


77 

•  Expanded  the  mission  of  the  Special  Operations  Command,  so  that  it  can  not  only  support 
missions  directed  by  the  regional  combatant  commanders,  but  also  plan  and  execute  its 
own  missions  in  the  global  war  on  terror,  supported  by  other  combatant  commands. 

•  Initiated  work  with  Allies  to  develop  a  new  NATO  command  structure  and  begin  work  on  a 
new  NATO  Response  Force. 

•  Took  steps  to  attract  and  retain  talent  in  our  Armed  Forces,  with  targeted  pay  raises  and 
quality  of  life  improvements. 

•  IVIade  a  number  of  tough  program  decisions,  including  replacement  of  the  Crusader,  B-1 
modernization,  and  the  Navy  "area-wide"  restructuring. 

•  Instituted  "realistic  budgeting,"  giving  Congress  more  realistic  estimates  of  what  programs 
can  be  expected  to  cost,  rather  than  coming  back  for  annual  non-emergency 
supplementals. 

•  Reorganized  and  revitalized  the  missile  defense  research,  development  and  testing 
program,  freed  from  the  constraints  of  the  ABM  Treaty. 

•  Completed  the  Nuclear  Posture  Review,  with  a  new  approach  to  deterrence  that  will 
enhance  our  security,  while  permitting  historic  deep  reductions  in  offensive  nuclear 
weapons. 

•  Moved  from  a  '1hreat-based"  to  a  "capabilities-based"  approach  to  defense  planning, 
focusing  not  only  on  who  might  threaten  us,  or  where,  or  when — and  more  on  how  we  might 
be  threatened,  and  what  portfolio  of  capabilities  we  will  need  to  deter  and  defend  against 
those  new  threats. 

These  are  important  accomplishments.  They  represent  some  of  the  most  significant  changes  in 
the  strategy  and  structure  of  our  Armed  Forces  in  at  least  a  generation. 

But  as  important  as  these  changes  are,  they  must  be  only  the  beginning.  Because  transforming  is 
about  more  than  developing  new  strategies  and  structures — it  is  about  changing  culture,  about 
encouraging  new  ways  of  thinking,  so  we  can  develop  new  ways  of  fighting  and  provide  our  Armed 
Forces  the  tools  they  need  to  defend  our  way  of  life  in  the  21  ^  century. 

We  are  working  to  promote  a  culture  in  the  Defense  Department  that  rewards  unconventional 
thinking — a  climate  where  people  have  freedom  and  flexibility  to  take  risks  and  fry  new  things.  We 
are  working  to  instill  a  more  entrepreneurial  approach  to  developing  military  capabilities,  one  that 
encourages  people  to  behave  less  like  bureaucrats;  one  that  does  not  wait  for  threats  to  emerge 
and  be  "validated,"  but  rather  anticipates  them  before  they  emerge — and  develops  and  deploys 
new  capabilities  quickly,  to  dissuade  and  deter  those  threats. 

Most  agree  that  to  win  the  global  war  on  terror,  our  Armed  Forces  need  to  be  flexible,  light  and 
agile — so  they  can  respond  quickly  to  sudden  changes.  Well,  the  same  is  true  of  the  men  and 
women  who  support  them  in  the  Department  of  Defense.  They  also  need  to  be  flexible,  light  and 
agile — so  they  can  move  money,  shift  people,  and  design  and  buy  new  weapons  quickly,  and 
respond  to  sudden  changes  in  our  security  environment. 


78 

Today,  we  do  not  have  that  kind  of  agility.  In  an  age  when  terrorists  move  information  at  the  speed 
of  an  email,  money  at  the  speed  of  a  wire  transfer,  and  people  at  the  speed  of  a  commercial 
jetliner,  the  Defense  Department  is  bogged  down  In  the  micromanagement  and  bureaucratic 
processes  of  the  industrial  age  -  not  the  information  age.    Some  of  our  difficulties  are  self- 
imposed,  to  be  sure.  Some  are  the  result  of  law  and  regulation.  Together  they  have  created  a 
culture  that  too  often  stifles  innovation.    Consider  just  a  few  of  the  obstacles  we  face  each  day: 

•  Think  of  this  FY  2004  budget  -  It  was  developed  by  the  Department  of  Defense  from 
March  2002  to  December  2002.    0(^B  considered  it  from  December  2002  to  February 
2003  when  the  President  presented  It  to  Congress.  Congress  will  be  considering  it  from 
February  2003  to  probably  October  or  November  of  2003  -  and,  as  in  the  past,  making 
10-20%  changes  in  what  he  proposed.  DoD  will  then  try  to  live  with  what's  left  during  the 
period  October  2003  to  September  2004.  That  means  that  at  any  given  time  during  the 
fiscal  year  of  that  budget,  it  will  be  between  from  14  months  to  30  months  old  while  we 
are  trying  to  implement  what  Congress  gives  us.  And  all  this  in  a  world  that  is  changing 
monthly  before  our  eyes. 

•  The  Department  of  Defense  spends  an  average  of  $42  million  an  hour — yet  we  are  not 
allowed  to  move  $15  million  from  one  account  to  another  without  getting  permission  from 
4-6  different  Congressional  Committees,  a  process  that  can  take  several  months  to 
complete. 

•  Today,  we  estimate  we  have  some  320,000  uniformed  people  doing  non-military  jobs, 
yet  we  are  calling  up  reserves  to  fight  the  global  war  on  terror. 

•  We  must  prepare  and  submit  26,000  pages  of  justification  and  over  800  required  reports 
to  Congress  each  year — many  of  marginal  value  and  most  probably  never  read — 
consuming  hundreds  of  thousands  of  man  hours. 

•  Despite  128  acquisition  reform  studies,  we  have  a  system  in  the  Defense  Department 
that  since  1975  has  doubled  the  time  it  takes  to  produce  a  new  weapons  system — in  an 
era  when  technology  moves  so  fast  that  new  technologies  often  become  obsolete  in 
months  and  years,  not  decades. 

•  Since  September  1 1"^,  our  force  protection  costs  have  gone  up  by  some  $5  billion 
annually.  But  because  we  are  required  to  keep  some  20%  plus  more  facilities  capacity 
than  are  needed  to  support  the  force,  we  are  effectively  wasting  something  like  $1  billion 
every  year  on  force  protection  alone  for  bases  and  facilities  we  do  not  need.  We  need  to 
follow  through  with  the  base  closure  process  that  Congress  authorized  last  year  without 
changes. 

•  We  have  to  contend  with  growing  micromanagement  of  the  Defense  budget,  making  it 
increasingly  difficult  to  balance  risks.  Consider  these  facts: 

•    The  last  time  I  was  Secretary  of  Defense,  the  1977  defense  authorization  bill 
was  16-pages  long — in  the  year  2001  it  had  grown  to  534  pages. 

«     In  1977,  Congress  made  a  total  of  46  changes  to  Army  and  Defense  Agency 
research,  development,  testing  and  evaluation  (RDT&E)  programs;  by  2001 
that  number  had  grown  to  450  individual  changes.  For  every  change 
Congress  makes  in  a  program,  there  is  a  cost  elsewhere  in  the  budget — every 
plus-up  in  one  place  means  we  must  reduce  funds  for  something  else,  be  it 


79 

housing,  or  spare  parts  or  trans(ormation — making  it  exceedingly  difficult  to 
balance  risks. 

•  We  spend  millions  of  taxpayer  dollars  training  top-notch  officers  and  senior  enlisted, 
giving  them  experience — and  then  we  shove  them  out  the  door  in  their  40s  and  early 
50s,  when  they  are  at  the  top  of  their  game  -  and  we  wiH  be  paying  60%  of  their  base 
pay  and  providing  them  with  comprehensive  healthcare  for  the  rest  of  their  lives.  The 
loss  in  talent  and  experience  to  the  Department  and  the  country  is  sizable. 

•  We  bounce  officers  around  from  assignment  to  assignment  every  16,  18,  22  months,  so 
many  end  up  skipping  across  the  tops  of  ttie  waves  so  fast  they  don't  have  time  to  learn 
from  their  own  mistakes. 

•  We  rely  on  almost  1 ,800  antiquated  legacy  information  systems  to  run  the  Defense 
finance  and  accounting  systems — ensuring  we  cannot  produce  timely  and  accurate 
management  information. 

•  We  have  the  equivalent  of  an  Army  heavy  division's  worth  of  auditors,  inspectors  and 
investigators. 

•  We  have  thousands  d  peopte  focused  on  developing  and  justifying  budgets,  and  a 
fraction  of  those  focus^l  on  ensuring  effective  implementation  arid  desired  outconnes. 

The  point  is  this:  we  are  fightirjg  ttie  first  wars  of  the  2 1 "  century  with  a  Defense  Department  that 
was  fashioned  to  meet  the  challenges  of  the  mid-20'*'  century.  We  have  an  industrial  age 
organization,  yet  we  are  living  in  an  information  age  world,  where  new  threats  emerge  suddenly, 
often  without  warning,  to  surprise  us.  We  cannot  afford  not  to  change  and  rapidly,  if  we  hope  to 
live  in  that  world. 

Some  of  the  fault  for  this  lies  with  the  executive  branch;  some  lies  with  the  legislative  branch  and 
some  is  simply  due  to  the  fast  pace  of  events.  But  the  American  people  do  not  care  cibout 
blame — for  their  sake  we  need  to  get  to  work  fixing  the  protHems. 

Last  year.  Congress  and  the  Administration  did  just  that,  when  we  faced  up  to  the  fact  that  our 
government  was  not  organized  to  deal  with  the  new  threats  to  the  American  homeland.  You 
enacted  historic  legislation  to  create  a  new  Department  of  Homeland  Security  and  rearrange  our 
government  to  be  better  prepared  for  potential  attacks  against  our  homes  and  schools  and  places 
of  work. 

We  must  now  address  the  Department  of  Defense.  We  are  already  working  with  a  number  of  you 
to  fashion  legislation  to  bring  the  Defense  Department  into  the  21"  century — to  transform  how  it 
moves  money,  manages  people,  and  buys  weapons.  We  are  looking  at,  among  other  things, 
proposals  to: 

•  EstabKsh  a  National  Security  Personnel  System,  that  will  give  the  Department  of 
Defense  greater  flexibility  in  how  it  handles  and  manages  its  civilian  personnel — so  we 
can  attract  and  retain  and  improve  the  performance  of  our  700,000-plus  civilian  work 
force.  Today  it  is  managed  outside  the  Department.  The  unintentional  effect  has  been 
that  the  Department  uses  military  personnel  and  contractors  rather  than  civilians,  since 
they  can  be  more  easily  managed. 

•  A  one-time  reorganization  of  the  Department,  with  "fast  track"  approval  procedures. 


80 

•  Move  a  number  of  the  non-military  functions  that  have  been  thrust  on  DoD  over  the 
years  to  other  Departments  that  can  provide  similar  or  better  services,  so  DoD  can  focus 
on  the  tasks  where  it  must  excel:  defending  our  country  in  a  dangerous  new  century. 

•  Transfer  some  1 ,800  personnel  who  conduct  background  investigations  to  the  Office  of 
Personnel  Ivlanagement.  Since  the  President  has  no  authority  to  transfer  functions 
across  the  Executive  Branch,  we  will  urge  that  he  be  given  that  authority. 

•  Establish  more  flexible  rules  for  the  flow  of  money  through  the  Department,  giving  us  the 
ability  to  move  larger  sums  between  programs  and  priorities,  so  we  can  respond  quickly 
to  urgent  needs. 

•  Streamline  acquisition  rules  and  procedures,  to  give  the  Department  greater  speed  and 
flexibility  in  the  development  and  deployment  of  new  capabilities. 

•  Establish  a  two-year  budget  cycle — so  that  the  hundreds  who  invest  time  and  energy  to 
rebuild  major  programs  every  year,  can  be  freed  up  and  not  be  required  to  do  so  on  an 
annual  basis. 

•  Eliminate  some  of  the  onerous  regulations  that  make  it  impossible  or  unattractive  for 
many  small  enterprises  to  do  business  with  the  Department. 

•  Expand  authority  for  competitive  outsourcing,  so  we  can  get  military  personnel  out  of 
non-military  tasks  and  back  into  the  field.  There  is  no  reason,  for  example,  that  the 
Defense  Department  should  be  in  the  business  of  making  eyeglasses,  when  the  private 
sector  makes  them  better,  faster  and  cheaper.  But  we  are.  That  needs  to  change. 

•  Clarify  environmental  statutes  which  restrict  access  to,  and  sustainment  of,  training  and 
test  ranges  essential  for  the  readiness  of  our  troops  and  the  effectiveness  of  our 
weapons  systems  in  the  global  war  on  terror. 

•  Expand  our  flexibility  to  extend  tour  lengths  for  military  leaders,  and  fully  credit  them  for 
joint  duty  assignments. 

•  Establish  more  flexible  military  retirement  rules,  so  that  those  who  want  to  serve  longer 
have  the  option  of  doing  so — so  we  can  retain  talent  instead  of  automatically  pushing  it 
out  the  door. 

•  Establish  sunset  procedures  for  the  hundreds  of  required  reports  so  that  we  can 
discontinue  those  that  have  outlived  their  usefulness.  We  simply  must  find  better  ways 
to  exchange  data  between  DoD  and  Congress,  so  that  you  get  the  information  you  need 
to  assess  pertorrrrance  and  we  do  not  have  to  employ  armies  of  personnel  and 
consultants  preparing  information  you  no  longer  need. 

Let  there  be  no  doubt,  some  of  the  obstacles  we  face  today  are  self-imposed.  Where  we  have 
authority  to  fix  those  problems,  we  are  working  hard  to  do  so.  For  example,  we  are  modernizing 
our  financial  management  structures,  to  replace  some  1 ,800  information  systems  so  we  can 
produce  timely  and  accurate  management  information.   We  are  reducing  staffing  layers  to 
increase  speed  and  efficiency.  We  are  modernizing  our  acquisition  structures  to  reduce  the  length 
of  time  it  takes  to  field  new  systems  and  drive  innovation.  We  are  working  to  push  joint  operational 
concepts  throughout  the  Department,  so  we  train  and  prepare  for  war  the  way  we  will  fight  it — 
jointly.  And  we  are  taking  steps  to  better  measure  and  track  perfonnance. 

We  are  doing  all  these  things,  and  more.. But  to  get  the  kind  of  agility  and  flexibility  that  are 
required  in  the  21*"  century  security  environment,  we  must  have  legislative  relief.  We  must  work 
together — Congress  and  the  Administration — to  transform  not  only  the  U.S.  Armed  Forces,  but  the 


81 

Defense  Department  that  serves  them  and  prepares  them  for  battle.  The  lives  of  the  service  men 
and  women  In  the  field — and  of  our  friends  and  families  here  at  home — depend  on  our  ability  to  do 
so. 

2004  Defense  Budget 

At  the  same  time,  we  are  taking  steps  to  implement  the  changes  agreed  upon  in  the  defense 
review.    Last  year's  budget — the  2003  request — was  finalized  just  as  that  review  process  was 
Hearing  completion.  It  included  a  top-line  increase,  and  made  important,  and  long-delayed 
investments  in  readiness,  people,  maintenance,  and  replacement  of  aging  systems  and  facilities. 
And  we  were  able  to  begin  funding  some  transforming  initiatives  as  the  new  defense  strategy 
came  into  focus. 

But  it  is  really  this  year's  budget — the  2004  request  before  you  today— that  is  the  first  to  fully  reflect 
the  new  defense  strategies  and  policies. 

We  submit  this  budget  to  you  at  a  time  of  war.  Our  experience  in  the  global  war  on  terror  has 
validated  the  strategic  decisions  that  were  made. 

When  our  nation  was  attacked,  there  was  a  great  deal  of  pressure  to  put  off  transformation — 
people  cautioned,  you  can't  fight  the  global  war  on  terrorism  and  simultaneously  transform  this 
institution.  The  opposite  is  the  case.  The  global  war  on  terror  has  made  transforming  an  even 
more  urgent  priority.  Our  experience  on  September  1 1""  made  clear,  our  adversaries  are 
transforming  the  ways  in  which  they  will  threaten  our  people.  We  cannot  stand  still. 

The  reality  is  that  whilethe  global  war  on  terror  is  an  impetus  for  change,  it  also  complicates  our 
task.  Balancing  risk  between  near-  and  long-term  challenges  is  difficult  even  in  peacetime.  But 
today,  we  must  accorr^lish  three  difficult  challenges  at  once: 

(1)  successfully  fight  the  global  war  on  terror; 

(2)  prepare  for  near-term  threats  by  making  long  delayed 
investments  in  readiness,  people,  and  modernization;  and 

(3)  prepare  for  the  future,  by  transforming  for  the  21"  century. 

The  2004  budget  request  before  you  today  is  designed  to  help  us  do  all  three. 
Our  defense  review  identified  six  goals  that  drive  our  transformation  efforts: 

•  First,  we  must  be  able  to  defend  the  U.S.  homeland  and  bases  of  operation  overseas; 

•  Second,  we  must  be  able  to  project  and  sustain  forces  in  distant  theaters; 

•  Third,  we  must  be  able  to  deny  enemies  sanctuary; 

•  Fourth,  we  must  improve  our  space  capabilities  and  maintain  unhindered  access  to 
space; 

•  Fifth,  we  must  harness  our  advantages  in  information  technology  to  link  up  different 
kinds  of  U.S.  forces,  so  they  can  fight  jointly;  and 


82 

•  Sixth,  we  must  be  able  to  protect  U.S.  information  networks  from  attack — and  to  disable 
the  information  networks  of  our  adversaries. 

The  President's  2004  budget  requests  funds  for  investments  that  will  support  each  of  these.  For 
example: 

•  For  programs  to  help  defend  the  U.S.  homeland  and  bases  of  operation  overseas — such 
as  missile  defense — we  are  requesting  S7.9  billion  in  the  2004  ijudget,  and  S55  billion 
over  the  Future  Years  Defense  Program  (FYDP). 

•  For  programs  to  project  and  sustain  forces  In  distant  theaters — such  as  new  unmanned 
underwater  vehicle  program  and  the  Future  Combat  Systems — we  are  requesting  $8 
billion  in  2004,  and  $96  billion  over  the  FYDP. 

•  For  programs  to  deny  enemies  sanctuary — such  as  unmanned  combat  aerial  vehicles, 
and  the  conversion  of  SSBN  to  SSGN  submarines — we  are  requesting  $5.2  billion  in 
2004  and  $49  billion  over  the  FYDP. 

•  For  programs  to  enhance  U.S.  space  capabilities — such  as  Space  Control  Systems — we 
are  requesting  $300  million  in  2004  and  $5  billion  over  the  FYDP. 

•  For  programs  to  harness  our  advantages  in  information  technology — such  as  laser 
satellite  communications,  Joint  Tactical  Radio,  and  the  Deployable  Joint  Command  and 
Control  System— we  are  requesting  $2.7  billion  in  2004  and  $28  billion  over  the  FYDP. 

•  For  programs  to  protect  U.S.  information  networks  and  attack  those  of  our  adversaries — 
such  as  the  Air  and  Space  Operations  Center — we  are  requesting  $200  million  in  2004 
and  $6  billion  over  the  FYDP. 

Over  the  next  six  years,  we  have  proposed  a  30%  increase  in  procurement  funding  and  a  65% 
increase  in  funding  for  research,  development,  testing  and  evaluation  (RDT&E)  at)ove  the  2002 
baseline  budget — a  total  investment  of  around  $150  billion  annually. 

In  addition  to  these  increases,  RDT&E  spending  will  rise  from  36%  to  42%  of  the  overall 
investment  budget.  This  shift  reflects  a  decision  to  accelerate  the  development  of  needed  next 
generation  systems,  and  by  accepting  some  near-term  risk. 

Among  the  more  important  transformational  investments  we  propose  Is  our  request  for  funds  to 
establish  a  new  Joint  National  Training  Capability.  In  the  21    century,  we  will  fight  wars  jointly. 
Yet  our  forces  still  too  often  train  and  prepare  for  war  as  indivkJual  services.  That  needs  to 
change.  To  ensure  that  U.S.  forces  train  like  they  fight  and  fight  like  they  train,  we  have  budgeted 
$1 .8  billion  over  the  next  six  years  to  fund  range  improvements  and  permit  more  of  both  live  and 
virtual  joint  training — an  annual  investment  of  $300  million. 

The  total  investment  in  transforming  military  capabilities  in  the  2004  request  is  $24.3  billion,  and 
about  $240  billion  over  the  FYDP. 

But  even  as  we  continue  to  transform  for  the  future,  we  must  also  recognize  that  new  and 
unexpected  dangers  are  waiting  for  us  over  the  horizon.  To  prepare  for  the  threats  we  will  face 
later  in  this  decade,  the  2004  budget  requests  increased  investments  in  a  number  of  critical  areas: 


83 

readiness,  quality  of  life  improvements  for  the  men  and  women  in  uniform,  and  increased 
investments  to  make  certain  existing  capabilities  are  properly  maintained  and  replenished. 

Over  the  next  six  years,  the  President  has  requested  a  15%  increase  for  (vlilitary  Personnel 
accounts,  above  the  2002  baseline  budget,  and  an  increase  in  funding  for  family  housing  by  10% 
over  the  same  period.  The  2004  budget  includes  $1  billion  for  targeted  military  pay  raises,  ranging 
from  2%  to  6.25%.  Out  of  pocket  expenses  for  those  living  in  private  housing  drop  from  7.5%  to 
3.5%  in  2004,  and  are  on  target  for  total  elimination  by  2005. 

Over  the  next  six  years,  vne  have  requested  a  20%  increase  for  Operation  and  Maintenance 
accounts  above  the  2002  baseline  budget.  We  have  added  $40  billion  for  readiness  of  all  the 
services  and  $6  billion  for  facilities  sustainment  over  the  same  period.  These  investments  should 
stabilize  funding  for  training,  spares  and  OPTEfvtPO,  and  put  a  stop  to  the  past  practice  of  raiding 
the  investment  accounts  to  pay  for  the  immediate  operation  and  maintenance  needs,  so  we  stop 
robbing  the  future  to  pay  today's  urgent  bills. 

This  2004  budget  does  not  include  funds  for  operations  In  the  global  war  on  ten-or.  Last  year,  we 
requested,  but  Congress  did  not  provide,  the  $10  billion  we  knew  we  would  need  for  the  first  few 
months  of  the  global  war  on  terror.  Because  of  that,  every  month  since  October  2002  -  October, 
November,  December  in  2002  and  January  and  now  February  in  2003 — we  have  had  to  borrow 
from  other  programs  to  pay  for  the  costs  of  the  war — robbing  Peter  to  pay  Paul.  And  that  does  not 
include  the  costs  of  preparations  for  a  possible  contingency  in  Iraq.  This  pattern  is  fundamentally 
harmful  to  our  ability  to  manage  the  Department.  It  causes  waste  and  harmful  management 
practices  which  consume  management  time  that  we  cannot  afford  in  a  time  of  war  and  which  are 
unfair  to  the  taxpayers. 

In  our  2004  request 

•  We  increased  the  shipbuilding  budget  by  $2.7  billion  making  good  on  our  hope  last 
year  that  we  could  increase  shipbuilding  from  five  to  seven  ships. 

•  We  increased  the  Special  Operations  budget  by  $1 .5  billion,  to  pay  for  equipment  lost 
in  the  global  war  on  terror  and  an  additional  1,890  personnel. 

•  We  increased  military  and  civilian  pay  by  $3.7  billion. 

•  We  increased  missile  defense  by  $1 .5  billion,  including  increased  funds  for  research 
and  development  of  promising  new  technologies,  and  to  deploy  a  small  number  of 
interceptors  beginning  in  2004. 

The  President  has  asked  Congress  for  a  total  of  $379.9  billion  for  fiscal  year  2004— a  $15.3  billion 
increase  over  last  year's  budget. 

That  is  a  large  amount  of  the  taxpayer's  hard-earned  rroney.  To  put  it  in  context,  when  I  was  in 
Congress  in  the  1960s,  the  United  States  had  the  first  $100  billion  budget  for  the  entire  U.S. 
government.  Nonetheless,  for  2004,  the  DoD  budget  will  amount  to  roughly  3.4%  of  GDP  -  still 
histoncally  low.  In  the  mid-1980s,  lor  example,  the  U.S.  was  dedicating  around  6%  of  GDP  to 
defense. 


84 

Nonetheless,  it  is  a  significant  Investment.  But  compared  with  the  costs  in  lives  and  treasure  of 
another  attack  like  the  one  we  experienced  on  September  1 1* — or  a  nuclear,  chemical  or 
biological  attack  that  would  be  vastly  worse — less  than  3  '/2  cents  on  the  dollar  is  a  prudent 
investment  in  security  and  stability. 

But  even  that  increase,  as  large  as  it  is,  only  gets  us  part  of  the  way.  Our  challenge  is  to  do  three 
difficult  things  at  once: 

•  Win  the  g\6ba\  war  on  terror; 

•  Prepare  for  the  threats  we  will  face  later  this  decade;  and 

•  Continue  transforming  for  the  threats  we  will  face  in  2010  and  beyond. 

Any  one  of  those  challenges  is  difficult — and  expensive.  Taking  on  all  three,  as  we  must,  required 
us  to  make  tough  choices  between  competing  demands.  Which  meant  that,  inevitably,  some 
desirable  capabilities  did  not  get  funded. 

So  let  me  state  it  straight  out: 

•  Despite  the  significant  increase  in  shipbuilding,  we  did  not  get  the  shipbuilding  rate  up  to 
the  desired  steady  state  of  10  ships  per  year.  Because  of  planned  retirements  of  other 
ships,  we  will  drop  below  a  300-ship  fleet  during  the  course  of  the  FYDP.  The  Navy  is  in 
the  process  of  transforming,  and  has  two  studies  underway  for  amphibious  ships  and  for 
submarines — we  have  increased  shipbuilding  in  2004,  but  we  do  not  want  to  lock 
ourselves  into  a  shipbuilding  program  now  until  we  know  precisely  which  ships  we  will 
want  to  build  in  the  out-years. 

•  We  have  not  been  able  to  modernize  our  tactical  air  forces  fast  enough  to  reduce  the 
average  age  of  our  aircraft  fleet. 

•  We  have  had  to  delay  completing  replenishment  of  all  inadequate  family  housing  by 
2007 — though  we  got  close! 

•  We  have  not  fully  resolved  our  so-called  "high-demand/low  density"  problems — systems 
like  JSTARS,  which,  because  they  have  been  chronically  under  funded  in  the  past,  will 
still  be  in  short  supply  in  this  budget. 

•  We  opted  not  to  modernize  a  number  of  legacy  programs — taking  on  some  near-term 
risks  to  fund  transforming  capabilities  we  will  need  in  this  fast  moving  world. 

•  We  did  not  achieve  the  level  of  growth  in  the  Science  and  Technology  (S&T)  accounts 
we  had  hoped  for.  Our  request  is  $1 0.2  billion,  or  2.69%  of  the  2004  budget.  That  Is 
below  the  goal  of  3%. 

»    We  have  delayed  investments  to  completely  fix  the  recapitalization  rate  for  DoD 
infrastructure.  We  are  reviewing  out  worldwide  base  structure,  and  starting  the  basic 
steps  to  prepare  for  the  2005  BRAG.  We  want  to  think  carefully  about  how  best  to  match 
our  base  structure  and  force  structure.  We  still  intend  to  get  the  rate  down  from  1 48 
years  to  67  years  by  2008,  and  we  expect  to  accelerate  facilities  investments  in  2006 
after  we  have  made  the  needed  decisions  with  respect  to  our  base  structure  at  home 
and  abroad. 


85 

That's  the  bad  news.  But  there  is  the  good  news  as  well:  In  making  difficult  choices  between 
competing  priorities,  we  made  better  choices  this  year  because  we  followed  the  new  approach  to 
balancing  risks  that  we  developed  in  last  year's  defense  review — an  approach  that  takes  into 
account  not  just  the  risks  in  operations  and  contingency  plans,  but  also  the  risks  to  people, 
modernization  and  the  future — risks  that,  in  the  past,  had  been  crowded  out  by  more  immediate 
pressing  demands.  The  result  is  a  more  balanced  approach  and  a  more  coherent  program. 

While  we  are  requesting  increased  funds,  the  services  have  stepped  up  to  the  plate  and  will  be 
canceling,  slowing  or  restructuring  a  number  of  programs — to  invest  the  savings  in  transforming 
capabilities.  For  example: 

•  The  Army  came  up  with  savings  of  some  $22  billion  over  the  six-year  FYDP,  by 
terminating  24  systems,  including  Crusader,  the  Bradley  A3  and  Abrams  upgrades  and 
reducing  or  restructuring  another  24  including  Medium  Tactical  Vehicles.  The  Army 
used  these  savings  to  help  pay  for  new  transformational  capabilities,  such  as  the  Future 
Combat  Systems. 

•  The  Navy  reallocated  nearly  $39  billion  over  the  FYDP.  by  retiring  26  ships  and  259 
aircraft,  and  merging  the  Navy  &  fvlarine  air  forces.  They  invested  these  savings  in  new 
ship  designs  and  aircraft. 

•  The  Air  Force  shifted  funds  and  changed  its  business  practices  to  account  for  nearty  $21 
billion  over  the  FYDP.  It  will  retire  1 14  fighter  and  115  mobility/tanker  aircraft.  The 
savings  will  be  invested  in  readiness,  people,  modernization  and  new  system  starts  and 
cutting  edge  systems  like  unmanned  aerial  vehicles  (UAVs)  and  unmanned  combat 
aerial  vehicles  (UCAVs) . 

In  all,  by  retiring  or  restructuring  less  urgent  programs,  we  have  achieved  savings  of  some  $80 
billion  over  the  FYDP — money  that  will  be  reinvested  by  the  services  in  capabilities  necessary  for 
the  21'' century. 

Finding  those  savings  is  important,  both  in  terms  of  freeing  up  resources  for  more  urgent  priorities, 
and  because  it  is  respectful  of  the  taxpayers'  hard-earned  money.  We  feel  a  deep  obligation  to  not 
waste  the  taxpayers'  dollars.  We  need  to  show  the  taxpayers  that  we  are  willing  to  stop  doing 
things  that  we  know  we  don't  need  to  be  doing,  and  take  that  money  and  put  it  into  investments  we 
need. 

Some  critics  may  argue  we  cut  too  deeply.  We  did  cancel  a  number  of  programs  that  were 
troubled,  to  be  sure,  but  also  others  that  were  not  troubled — but  which  simply  did  not  fit  with  our 
new  defense  strategy.  In  a  world  of  unlimited  resources,  they  would  have  been  nice  to  have.  But 
in  a  worid  where  needs  outstrip  available  funds,  we  cannot  do  everything.  And  something  has  to 
give. 

Still  others  argue  from  the  opposite  direction — saying  that  we  did  not  cut  deeply  enough.  They  ask: 
what  happened  to  your  hit  list?  The  answer  is:  we  never  had  a  "hit  list."  What  we  had  was  a  new 


10 


86 

defense  strategy,  and  we  reviewed  all  the  programs  in  the  pipeline  to  see  if  they  fit  into  that 
defense  strategy  and  the  new  security  environment  we  face. 

Some  were  eliminated.  In  other  cases,  it  made  more  sense  to  scale  them  back  or  change  them. 
For  example,  the  Comanche  helicopter  program  was  born  in  the  1980s,  and  the  Army  planned  to 
buy  around  1 ,200  of  them.  But  in  ttie  interim,  the  Army  decided  to  change  its  structure.  In  the  way 
the  Army  plans  to  fight  in  the  decades  ahead,  the  role  of  the  helicopter  changes — it  will  be  used 
more  for  reconnaissance  and  light  attack.  And  for  that  mission  1.200  helicopters  weren't  needed — 
so  we  brought  the  number  down  to  about  650. 

In  still  other  areas,  we  set  up  competition  for  future  missions.  For  example,  in  tactical  aircraft,  by 
2010  the  F-22  will  be  nearing  the  end  of  its  planned  production  run,  the  Joint  Strike  Fighter  (JSF) 
will  be  coming  on  line,  a  number  of  UCAVs  will  be  ready,  and  hypersonic  systems  could  be  within 
reach.  As  a  result,  future  Presidents  will  have  rich  menu  of  choices  for  strike  operations  we  don't 
now  have. 

We  are  transforming  the  way  we  develop  new  systems.  The  old  way  was  to  develop  a  picture  of 
the  perfect  system,  and  then  build  the  system  to  meet  that  vision  of  perfection,  however  long  it  took 
or  cost.  The  result  was  that,  as  technology  advanced,  and  with  it  dreams  of  what  a  perfect  system 
could  do,  capabilities  were  taking  longer  and  longer  to  develop  and  the  cost  of  systems  increased 
again  and  again  -  Time  is  money. 

Our  approach  is  to  start  with  the  basics,  simpler  items,  and  roll  out  early  models  faster — and  then 
add  capabilities  to  the  basic  system  as  they  become  available.    This  is  what  the  private  sector 
does — companies  bring  a  new  car  or  aircraft  on  line,  for  example,  and  then  update  it  over  a  period 
of  years  with  new  designs  and  technologies.  We  intend  to  do  the  same. 

Take,  for  example,  our  approach  to  ballistic  missile  defense.  Instead  of  taking  a  decade  or  more  to 
develop  someone's  vision  of  a  "perfect"  shield,  we  have  instead  decided  to  develop  and  put  in 
place  a  rudimentary  system  by  2004 — one  which  should  make  us  somewhat  safer  than  we  are 
now — and  then  build  on  that  foundation  with  increasingly  effective  capabilities  as  the  technologies 
mature. 

We  intend  to  apply  this  "spiral  developmenr'  approach  to  a  number  of  systems,  restructured 
programs  and  new  starts  alike  over  the  course  of  the  FYDP.  The  result  should  be  that  new 
capabilities  will  be  available  faster,  so  we  can  better  respond  to  fast  moving  adversaries  and  newly 
emerging  threats. 

As  a  result  of  all  these  strategic  investments  and  decisions,  we  can  now  see  the  effects  of 
transforming  begin  to  unfold.  Consider  just  some  of  the  changes  that  are  taking  place: 

•  Today,  the  missile  defense  research,  development  and  testing  program  has  been 
revitalized  and  we  are  on  track  for  limited  land/sea  deployment  in  2004-5. 

•  Today,  the  Space  Based  Radar,  v/hich  will  help  provide  near-persistent  24/7/365 
coverage  of  the  globe,  is  scheduled  to  be  ready  in  2012 


87 

•  In  this  budget,  we  believe  SBIRS-High  Is  properly  funded. 

•  Today,  we  are  converting  4  Trident  SSBN  subs  into  conventional  SSGNs,  capable  of 
delivering  special  forces  and  cruise  missiles  to  denied  areas. 

•  Today,  we  are  proposing  to  build  the  CVN-21  aircraft  carrier  in  2007.  which  will  include 
many  new  capabilities  that  were  previously  sctieduled  to  be  introduced  only  in  201 1. 

•  Today,  instead  of  1  UCAV program  in  development,  the  X-45.  which  was  designed  for  a 
limited  mission:  suppression  of  enemy  air  defense,  we  have  set  up  competition  among  a 
number  of  programs  that  will  produce  UCAVs  able  to  conduct  a  broad  range  of  missions. 

•  Today,  we  are  revitafizing  the  B- 1  fleet  by  reducing  its  size  and  using  savings  to 
modernize  remaining  aircraft  with  precision  weapons,  self-protection  systems,  and 
reliability  upgrades— and  thanks  to  these  efforts,  I  am  told  the  B-1  now  has  the  highest 
mission  capable  rates  in  the  history  of  the  program. 

•  Today,  in  place  of  the  Cmsader,  the  Army  is  building  a  new  family  of  precision  artillery- 
including  precisions  munitions  and  Non-Line-ofSight  Cannon  for  the  Future  Combat 
Systems. 

•  Today,  we  have  seen  targeted  pay-raises  and  other  reforms  help  retain  mid-career 
officers  and  NCOs,  so  that  fewer  of  them  leave  the  service  while  still  in  their  prime,  so 
the  country  can  continue  to  benefit  from  their  talent  and  experience. 

These  are  positive  changes  that  will  ensure  that  future  Administrations  will  have  the  capabilities 
they  need  to  defend  the  country,  as  well  as  a  menu  of  choices  which  they  can  then  select  from  to 
shape  the  direction  of  the  Department  a  decade  from  now,  as  the  21 "  century  security  environment 
continues  to  change  and  evolve. 

CONCLUSION 

Finally,  I  believe  that  the  transparency  of  the  process  we  have  used  to  develop  this  budget  has 
been  unprecedented.  For  several  months  now,  we  have  been  providing  detailed  briefings  to  those 
interested  in  defense  here  on  Capitol  Hill,  so  that  Congress  is  not  simply  being  presented  with  the 
President's  budget  today,  but  has  been  kept  in  the  loop  as  decisions  were  being  made.  Our  goal 
was  to  ensure  that  Members  and  staff  have  had  every  opportunity  to  better  understand  (he  thinking 
that  lies  behind  these  proposals.  I  am  told  that  the  extent  of  consultation  from  the  Defense 
Department  to  the  Congress  this  year  has  been  unprecedented. 

I  hope  you  will  take  this  as  evidence  of  the  fact  that  we  are  serious  about  our  commitment  to 
transform  not  only  our  Armed  Forces,  but  to  transform  DoD's  relationship  with  Congress  as  well. 
Whether  each  Member  will  agree  with  each  of  the  individual  decisions  and  recommendations  that 
have  been  made  in  this  budget,  the  fact  is  that  it  has  been  developed  in  an  unprecedented  spint  of 
openness  and  cooperation. 


12 


88 

We  hope  that  this  spirit  of  openness  and  cooperation  can  continue  as  Congress  deliberates  this 
year  both  the  President's  budget  and  the  legislation  we  are  now  discussing  with  you  and  will  be 
sending  to  transform  the  way  the  Defense  Department  operates.  We  must  work  together  to  bring 
DoD  out  of  the  industrial  age,  and  help  get  it  arranged  for  the  fast-paced  security  environment  of 
the  21^' century. 

I  close  by  saying  that  transformation  is  not  an  event — it  is  a  process.  There  is  no  point  at  which  the 
Defense  Department  will  move  from  being  "unlransformed"  to  "transformed."  Our  goal  is  to  set  in 
motion  a  process  of  continuing  transformation,  and  a  culture  that  will  keep  the  United  States 
several  steps  ahead  of  any  potential  adversaries. 

To  do  that  we  need  not  only  resources,  but  equally,  we  need  the  freedom  to  use  them  with  speed 
and  agility,  so  we  can  respond  quickly  to  the  new  threats  we  will  face  as  this  century  unfolds. 

Thank  you  Mr.  Chairman. 

## 


89 


GENERAL  RICHARD  B.  MYERS,  USAF 

CHAIRMAN  OF  THE 

JOINT  CHIEFS  OF  STAFF 


i5 


BEFORE  THE  tOl^H  CONGRESS 


.Mk: 


HOUSE  ARMED  SBRttCES  COMMITTEE 


5Fi 


2003 


90 

It  is  an  honor  to  report  to  Congress  on  the  state  of  the  US  Armed  Forces. 

Today,  our  Nation's  Soldiers,  Sailors,  Airmen,  Marines  and  Coastguardsmen 
operate  in  an  environment  characterized  by  opportunity  and  danger.   In  the 
wake  of  September  1 1'^,  US  Forces  are  now  deployed  to  an  unprecedented 
number  of  locations.   Our  forces  also  operate  with  a  wider  array  of  coalition 
partners  to  accomplish  more  diverse  missions. 

These  operations  are  required,  as  the  world  remains  a  dangerous  place.   In 
recent  months,  terrorists  have  successfully  conducted  numerous  attacks  -  in 
the  Middle  E)ast,  Africa  and  Southeast  Asia.   The  loss  of  Innocent  lives  serves 
as  a  poignant  reminder  that  terrorists'  evil  has  no  moral  or  territorial  limits. 
Coalition  discoveries  in  Afghanistan  and  other  places  confirm  that  al  Qaida 
actively  seeks  weapons  of  mass  destruction.  This  network  remains  active  and 
determined  to  conduct  more  attacks  against  the  US  and  our  allies. 

At  the  same  time,  other  threats  to  US  interests  have  not  abated.   US  Armed 
Forces  remain  focused  on  preparing  for  potential  regional  conflict.   The 
proliferation  of  advanced  technology,  weapons  and  associated  expertise  has 
increased  the  probability  that  our  adversaries  will  be  capable  in  the  future  of 
fielding  significantly  more  robust  and  lethal  means  to  attack  the  US  and  our 
interests.   In  December  2002.  North  Korea  announced  that  it  would  resume  its 
nuclear  program.   Iraq  has  used  chemical  and  biological  weapons  in  the  past 
and  would  likely  use  them  again  in  the  future.   Iraq  is  also  aggressively  seeking 
nuclear  weapons.   These  facts  create  imperatives  for  our  Nation's  Armed 
Forces.  All  the  while,  US  Forces  remain  prepared  to  confront  the  consequences 
of  factional  strife  in  distant  lands  and  respond  to  humanitarian  disasters. 

The  President's  National  Security  Strategy  provides  a  new  focus  for  our 
Nation's  Armed  Forces.   Based  on  detailed  analysis  in  the  most  recent  2001 
Quadrennial  Defense  Review,  the  Defense  Department  adopted  a  new  Defense 
Strategy.  Today,  we  must  be  ready  to  assure  our  allies,  while  we  dissuade, 
deter  and  defeat  any  adversary.  We  p>ossess  the  forces  necessary  to  defend  the 
United  States  homeland  and  deter  forward  in  four  critical  regions.   If  required, 
we  will  swiftly  defeat  the  efforts  of  two  adversaries  in  an  overlapping  timeframe, 
while  having  the  ability  to  "win  decisively"  in  one  theater.   In  addition,  our 
forces  are  able  to  conduct  a  limited  number  of  lesser  contingencies,  maintain  a 
sufficient  force  generation  capability  and  support  a  strategic  reserve. 

At  home,  the  establishment  of  the  United  States  Northern  Command 
(NORTHCOM)  has  significantly  improved  the  preparedness,  responsiveness  and 
Integration  between  the  US  military  and  other  federal  agencies  defending  our 
homeland.   NORTHCOM  is  an  integral  part  of  the  rapidly  expanding 
interagency  network  supporting  Homeland  Defense. 


91 

Our  Nation's  entire  Armed  Forces  remain  as  engaged  today  as  at  any  time  since 
the  Second  World  War.  The  War  on  Terrorism  remains  our  primary  focus.    In 
concert  with  other  instruments  of  National  power,  our  Armed  Forces  are 
tracking  down  al  Qaida  in  Afghanistan  and  around  the  world.   Simultaneously, 
we  are  operating  in  the  No-Fly  Zones  over  Iraq,  enforcing  UN  sanctions  in  the 
Arabian  Gulf,  facilitating  reconstruction  in  Afghanistan,  conducting 
peacekeeping  operations  in  the  Balkans,  supporting  our  partners  in  South 
America  against  narcotics  trafficking  and  terrorist  cells,  preserving  stability  in 
the  Korean  Peninsula  and  defending  the  American  homeland.   Clearly,  the 
American  people  should  know  that  their  Armed  Forces  are  operating  at  a  high 
tempo. 

As  a  result  of  this  unprecedented  strategic  environment.  I  have  established 
three  priorities  as  Chairman  of  the  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff:  To  win  the  war  on 
terrorism,  to  improve  Joint  warflghtlng  and  to  transform  our  Nation's  military  to 
face  the  dangers  of  the  21=i  Century.  These  priorities  also  reflect  the  priorities 
of  the  Secretary  of  Defense.   Combined  with  the  President's  vision,  the 
Secretary's  leadership,  the  support  of  Congress  and  the  selfless  service  of  our 
Nation's  Soldiers.  Sailors,  Airmen,  Marines,  Coastguardsmen  and  Civilian 
workforce  -  our  Nation's  Armed  Forces  are  making  progress  in  each  of  these 
areas. 

Al  Qaida  was  not  created  in  a  single  day.   It  formed  over  the  course  of  a  decade 
or  more  prior  to  September  11.  2001.  It  cannot  be  destroyed  in  a  day  or  a  year 
-  it  will  require  a  commitment  of  many  years.  We  recognize  that  dangerous 
and  difficult  work  remains.  TTie  following  highlights  recent  successes  and 
describes  what  additional  actions  are  required  to  protect  our  Nation  in  our 
djniamic  security  environment. 

War  on  Terrorism 

For  the  past  16  months,  the  US  Armed  Forces,  in  concert  with  other  federal 
agencies  and  our  coalition  partners,  have  conducted  a  determined  campaign  to 
defeat  the  most  potent  threat  to  our  way  of  life  -  global  terrorist  organizations. 
Operation  ENDURING  FREEDOM  has  dealt  a  severe  blow  to  the  al  Qaida 
transnational  network.  About  50  k^  al  Qaida  officials,  operatives  and 
logistlcians  have  been  killed  or  captured.   Numerous  other  operatives  have  also 
been  removed;  however,  al  Qaida  remains  a  formidable  and  adaptive  peril  to 
our  nation  and  our  partners. 

Our  successes  reflect  the  careful  Integration  of  all  Instruments  of  national 
power.  This  war  against  terrorists  requires  the  inclusive  commitment  of  the 
militaiy.  financial,  economic,  law  enforcement  and  intelligence  resources  of  our 
NaUon.   On  the  international  level,  the  military  support  and  cooperation  has    , 
been  remarkable.   UnUl  August  of  last  year  when  we  determined  it  was  no 
longer  required.  NATO  provided  Airborne  Early  Warning  aircraft  to  supplement 


92 

our  E-3  aircraft  patrolling  over  American  cities.   NATO  allies  remciln  with  us  in 
Afghanistaui  and  patrolling  the  oceans  to  interdict  terrorists  and  their  weapons 
or  resources.   More  than  90  nations  share  our  resolve  and  contribute  daily  to 
the  goal  of  destroying  al  Qaida.  As  part  of  this  effort,  numerous  bilateral 
counter-terrorist  exercises  and  exchanges  have  been  conducted  around  the 
world. 

At  the  national  level,  the  Defense  Department  has  made  numerous 
adjustments.  The  creation  of  the  Joint  Interagency  Task  Force  for  Counter- 
Terrorism  enables  the  rapid  flow  of  information  and  analysis  from  national 
resources  to  the  battlefield.   Likewise,  Combatant  Commanders  established 
Joint  Interagency  Coordination  Groups  to  share  information,  coordinate 
actions  and  streamline  operations  among  military,  intelligence  and  law 
enforcement  agencies.  At  US  Special  Operations  Command,  the  Counter- 
Terrorism  Campaign  Support  Group  combines  the  expertise  and  resources  of 
the  Departments  of  State,  Tt-easury  and  Justice  and  the  CIA  with  our  Special 
Operations  warriors  at  the  operational  level.   The  Counter-Terrorism  Campaign 
Support  Group  fuses  Intelligence,  interagency  and  military  activities  in  a 
seamless  organization. 

Current  Overseas  Operations 

In  Afghanistan,  our  greatest  success  has  been  to  deny  al  Qalda  an  operating 
haven.  Today.  Afghanistan  has  the  first  true  chance  for  peace  in  23  years. 
More  than  2  million  Afghan  people  have  returned  home.  We  are  in  the  final 
stages  of  Phase  III  (Decisive  Operations).   Phase  III  has  severely  degraded  al 
Qalda's  operational  capabilities  and  their  ability  to  train  new  members.  Their 
support  continues  to  decline  among  the  Afghan  people.   Pockets  of  Taliban  and 
£il  Qalda  resistance  remain  within  Afghanistan  primarily  along  the  Pakistani 
border.   Nonetheless,  overall  conditions  may  permit  us  to  soon  shift  to  Phase  FV 
(Stability  Operations).   Once  the  President  decides  to  move  into  Phase  IV,  we 
will  increase  the  civil  and  reconstruction  assistance  to  the  Afghan  government. 
Stability  operations  will  require  a  great  deal  of  support  from  the  international 
community  to  be  successful. 

This  past  year,  a  key  task  to  promote  stability  began  with  training  of  the 
Afghan  National  Army.   TTie  US  spearheaded  the  development  of  this  force  with 
training,  equipment,  and  force  structure  requirements.  The  Afghan  National 
Army's  first  five  battalions  have  completed  basic  training  at  the  Kabul  Military 
Training  Center.   More  than  1.300  troops  began  advanced  training  as  of 
December.  The  sixth  battalion  is  currently  in  basic  training  and  soon  we  will 
begin  select  officer  training.   The  French  have  funded  the  initial  salaries  for  the 
recruits  for  all  six  battalions  and  provided  half  of  the  training.   Recently  trained 
forces  are  Integrating  with  our  forces  throughout  the  countryside.   To  date,  the 
international  community  has  donated  $40  million  worth  of  equipment.    Our 


93 

military  forces  will  be  part  of  an  ongoing  commitment  to  provide  equipment  and 
expertise. 

The  International  Security  Assistance  Force  in  Afghanistan  continues  its  role 
mandated  by  the  Bonn  agreement  and  UN  Security  Council  resolutions. 
Today,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  are  preparing  to  share  leadership 
responsibilities  of  the  International  Security  Assistance  Force  as  they  take  over 
in  February  2003.   They  follow  the  example  set  by  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Turkey.  Twenty-two  nations  contribute  more  than  4.500  troops  to  this  vital 
mission. 

In  January  2002,  United  States  Central  Command  (CENTCOM)  proposed  a 
concept  of  operations  to  disrupt  terrorist  operations  in  and  around  Yemen. 
Central  to  this  plan,  CENTCOM  proposed  to  strengthen  Yemeni  Special  Forces 
capability  for  counter-terrorism  operations  and  expand  intelligence, 
surveillance  and  reconnaissance  operations.  Yemeni  Special  Forces  have  been 
trained  on  counter-terrorism  tactics  and  procedures  and  are  currently  receiving 
maritime  counter-terrorism  training.  The  working  relationship  between  the  US 
and  Yemeni  Government  has  greatly  Improved  as  a  result  of  this  training 
program. 

CENTCOM  also  established  Joint  Task  Force  Horn  of  Africa  (JTF-HOA)  as  part 
of  its  Theater  Counter-Terrorism  Campaign.   In  December  2002,  JTF-HOA 
stood  up  while  embarked  on  USS  Mount  Whitney.  JTF-HOA  provides 
CENTCOM  a  regional  counter-terrorism  focus  in  E^st  Africa  and  Yemen.   It 
exercises  command  and  control  of  counter- terrorism  operations  for  this  area. 
The  JTF-HOA  staff  villi  remain  embarked  on  USS  Mount  Whitney  for  4  to  6 
months  until  the  infrastructure  is  in  place  ashore  at  Camp  Lemonler,  Djibouti. 

Meanwhile,  CENTCOM  and  Allied  Forces  continue  Maritime  Interception 
Operations  in  the  Arabian  Gulf  to  enforce  UN  sanctions  against  fraq.   In  2002, 
coalition  forces  diverted  over  800  vessels  suspected  of  carrying  Illegal  fraql  oil. 
This  reflects  a  significant  increase  over  the  1 15  vessels  diverted  in  2001. 

United  States  European  Command  (EUCOM)  through  its  Special  Operations 
Command,  Europe,  began  the  Georgia  Train  and  Ek^uip  Program  to  build  a 
Georgian  capability  to  deal  with  the  terrorist  presence  in  the  Panklsi  Gorge. 
EUCOM  developed  a  plan  to  train  three  staffs,  four  battalions  and  one 
Mechanized/Armor  company  team.   EUCOM  has  completed  training  the 
Georgian  Ministry  of  Defense  staff,  the  Land  Forces  Command  staff  eUid  the 
first  battalion.   In  December.  Commander,  EUCOM  directed  Marine  Forces 
Europe  to  assume  the  Georgia  Train  and  Equip  Program  mission,  which  will 
resume  training  in  Februcuy.   Six  other  allies  contributed  nearly  $2  million  in 
materiel  reflecting  the  international  nature  of  this  program. 

In  July,  the  President  approved  E^anded  Maritime  Interception  Operations  to 
interdict  terrorists  and  their  resources.  With  this  order,  the  President 


5  , 


94 

authorized  commanders  to  stop,  board  and  search  merchant  ships  identified  to 
be  transporting  terrorists  and/or  terrorist-related  materiel.   Expanded 
Maritime  Interception  Operations  are  focused  on  EUCOM  and  CENTCOM's 
Area  of  Responsibilities  (AORs)  while  PACOM  and  the  other  Combatant 
Commanders  are  developing  Expanded  Maritime  Interception  Operations 
plans.   Eleven  nations  provide  forces  for  Maritime  Interception  Operations 
within  the  CENTCOM  AOR   German  and  Spanish  senior  officers  command 
parts  of  these  operations  --  reflecting  the  coalition  commitment  to  the  War  on 
Terrorism.   So  far,  EUCOM's  Maritime  Interception  Operations  have  stopped 
fourteen  ships.   NATO  maritime  and  air  forces  support  the  Maritime 
Interception  Operations  within  EUCOM's  AOR. 

In  Europe,  we  support  NATO's  plan  to  transition  Stabilization  Forces  in  Bosnia- 
Herzegovina  to  a  minimal  presence  and  Kosovo  Forces  to  a  reduced  presence 
by  the  end  of  2004.   In  the  spring  of  2003.  the  NATO  Military  Committee  will 
review  the  proposed  force  structure  reductions  and  restructuring  for  Bosnia 
and  Kosovo.   Our  presence  in  the  Balkans  has  not  only  promoted  peace  in  the 
region,  it  has  also  enhanced  our  ability  to  conduct  counter-terrorism 
operations. 

During  this  past  year  in  support  of  Operation  ENDURING  FREEDOM  - 
Philippines,  US  Pacific  Command  (PACOM)  has  provided  the  Armed  Forces  of 
the  Philippines  military  advice  and  assistance  in  targeting  Abu  Sayyaf  Group 
terrorist  activities  in  the  Philippines.   US  forces  could  be  available  to  provide 
follow-on  advice  and  assistance  if  requested  by  the  Government  of  Philippines, 
and  approved  by  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  Defense.   In  concert  with 
these  efforts  supporUng  Operation  ENDURING  FREEDOM.  Congress  has 
approved  the  Security  Assistance  Funding  necessary  to  provide  counter- 
terrorism  training  for  the  armed  forces  of  the  Philippines.  Training  will  begin  in 
the  February/March  timeframe. 

United  States  Southern  Command  (SOUTHCOM)  continues  to  support  counter- 
nsircotics  trafficking  and  counter-terrorism  efforts  in  South  America.   In 
accordance  with  new  Presidential  policy  and  expamded  legislative  authority,  we 
are  assisting  the  Colombian  military  in  its  fight  against  designated  terrorist 
organizations  by  providing  advice,  training  and  equipment.   Our  current 
operations  are  built  on  preexisting  counter-narcotics  missions.   US  troops  are 
currently  training  the  Colombian  military  to  protect  critical  infrastructures, 
such  as  the  Cano  Limon  Pipeline.   In  addition  personnel  will  deploy  in  FY03  to 
serve  as  Operations  and  Intelligence  Planning  Assistance  Teams  at  selected 
units  to  assist  the  Colombian  military  in  its  fight  against  terrorism.   This 
assistance  will  continue  over  the  next  several  years.  TTie  US  military  presence 
in  Colombia  is  limited  to  the  troop  caps  established  by  Congress,  in  terms  of 
uniformed  and  contract  personnel. 


95 

The  TH-Border  Area  of  Argentina.  Brazil  and  Paraguay  is  a  focal  point  of 
increased  drug  and  arms  trafficking,  money  laundering,  document  fraud  and 
Islamic  terrorist-supported  activities.   US  and  Brazilian  officials  estimate  that 
between  $10  -  12  billion  USD/year  flows  through  the  Tri-Border  Area,  some  of 
which  is  diverted  to  known  terrorist  groups  such  as  Hizballah  and  Hamas. 

Commander,  SOUTHCOM  continues  detainee  operations  (detention  and 
Intelligence  collection  missions)  at  Guantanamo  Bay,  Cuba.  While  the 
Detainees  are  not  entitled  to  the  status  of  Enemy  Prisoners  of  War,  the 
President  and  the  Secretary  of  Defense  have  directed  that  the  U.S.  armed  forces 
treat  them  humanely  and  to  the  extent  appropriate  and  consistent  with 
military  necessity,  consistent  with  the  principles  of  the  Geneva  Conventions. 
SOUTHCOM  has  constructed  an  additional  190  medium  security  units  to 
augment  the  816  holding  units  and  fortified  billeting  structures  for  US  military 
personnel  assigned.   Almost  2,000  US  militar>'  personnel  are  deployed  to 
Guantanamo  Bay  in  support  of  detainee  operations.   TTie  President  issued  an 
order  on  November  13,  2001,  authorizing  use  of  military  commissions  to 
prosecute  Individuals  subject  to  the  order  for  offenses  against  the  laws  of  war 
and  other  applicable  laws.   To  date,  no  one  has  been  made  specifically  subject 
to  the  order,  and  therefore,  no  one  has  been  prosecuted  by  military 
commission.   The  Secretary  of  Defense  appointed  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  to 
lead  war  crimes  investigations.  A  few  of  those  detained  at  Guantanamo 
determined  to  be  of  no  intelligence  or  law  enforcement  value  or  threat  to  the  US 
or  Its  Interests,  have  been  released  and  returned  to  their  countries  of  origin. 

We  view  Guantanamo  Bay  as  a  national  asset  that  supports  our  work  in 
securing  Intelligence  vital  to  success  in  the  war  on  terrorism  smd  protection  of 
our  homeland.   It  also  supports  Interagency  and  international  intelligence  and 
law  enforcement  efforts.   Interrogations  at  Guantanamo  Bay  have  resulted  in 
Intelligence  of  high  value.   Information  gathered  from  known  terrorists  held  at 
Guantanamo  Bay  has  helped  us  to  define  and  disrupt  the  global  terrorist 
threat. 

Unified  Command  Plan  2002 

On  1  October  2002  we  implemented  the  2002  Unified  Command  Plan,  as 
directed  by  the  President.  TTie  2002  Unified  Command  Plan,  and  Its 
subsequent  Change  1 .  created  United  States  Northern  Command 
(NORTHCOM),  disestablished  United  States  Space  Command  (SPACECOM)  and 
combined  SPACECOM's  missions  and  forces  with  United  States  Strategic 
Command  (STRATCOM),  thereby  establishing  a  "new"  STRATCOM. 

United  States  Northern  Command  and  Homeland  Security 

NORTHCOM's  mission  is  to  deter,  prevent  and  defeat  threats  and  aggression 
aimed  at  the  US  and  its  territories.   When  directed,  NORTHCOM  provides 
military  assistsmce  to  civil  authorities.  Including  consequence  management. 


96 

Commander.  NORTHCOM  is  dual-hatted  as  Commander.  North  Americcin 
Aerospace  Defense  Command  (NORAD).    NORAD  has  control  of  the  Air  Defense 
of  CONUS.   Land  and  MariUme  operations  are  controlled  by  NORTHCOM. 

NORTHCOM  stood  up  its  combatant  command  staJT  and  accepted  Homeland 
Defense  missions  and  tasks  from  United  States  Joint  Forces  Command 
(JFCOM)  and  other  combatant  commands.   It  has  also  developed  a  plan  to 
reach  its  full  operational  capability.   Currently.  NORTHCOM  is  engaged  with 
federal  and  state  agencies,  the  National  Guard  and  NORAD  to  plan  and 
exercise  a  variety  of  homeland  defense  and  civil  support  tasks. 
Simultaneously.  NORTHCOM  is  cultivating  closer  relationships  with  our  North 
American  neighbors. 

As  part  of  this  effort,  NORTHCOM's  Standing  Joint  Task  Force  Civil  Support 
provides  command  and  control  for  DOD  forces  supporting  the  lead  federal 
agency  managing  the  consequences  of  chemical,  biological,  radiological, 
nuclear  or  high-yield  explosive  incidents  in  addition  to  natural  disasters.  As 
such.  Joint  Task  Force  Civil  Support  provides  a  sustained  planning  staff  that 
has  formed  a  habitual  relationship  with  key  Federal  and  State  Agencies  plus 
communities  nationwide. 

NORAD's  responsibilities  for  air  and  ground  early  warning  systems  and  alert 
fighter  support  in  defense  of  CONUS,  Canada  and  Alaska  remain  unchanged. 
In  addition.  NORAD  is  identifying  the  Infrastructure  needed  for  the  defense  of 
the  National  Capital  Region. 

On  December  9.  2002  the  US  and  Canada  agreed  to  create  a  new  bi-natlonal 
land,  maritime,  and  civil  support  military  planning  group  at  NORAD  to  help 
examine  potential  responses  to  threats  and  attacks  on  the  US  or  Canada.  This 
initiative  will  advance  our  ability  to  defend  our  Nation. 

Last  year  Operation  NOBLE  EAGLE  flew  over  14.000  sorties  even  while  our 
current  operations  overseas  required  key  resources.  These  sorties  represent 
NORAD's  contributions  to  Operation  NOBLE  EAGLE  and  defense  of  the 
American  Homeland. 

United  States  Strategic  Command 

United  States  Strategic  Command's  (STRATCOM)  mission  is  to  establish  and 
provide  full-spectrum  global  strike,  coordinate  space  and  information 
operations  capabilities  to  meet  both  deterrent  and  decisive  national  security 
objectives.  STRATCOM  retains  its  nuclear  triad  of  submarine,  bomber  and 
missile  forces. 

On  10  January  2003,  the  President  signed  Change  2  to  the  Unified  Command 
Plan.   This  latest  changed  assigned  four  emergent  missions  to  STRATCOM  and 


97 

reflects  the  US  military's  increased  emphasis  on  a  global  view.  These  new 
missions  include  missile  defense,  global  strike,  DOD  information  operations 
and  global  command,  control,  communications,  computers,  intelligence, 
surveillance  and  reconnaissance.   Missile  defense  is  an  inherently  multi- 
command  and  multi-regional  task.   STRATCOM  will  serve  as  the  primary 
advocate  in  the  development  of  missile  defense  operational  architecture.   With 
its  global  strike  responsibilities,  the  Command  will  provide  a  core  cadre  to  plan 
and  execute  nuclear,  conventional  and  Information  operations  anywhere  in  the 
world.   STE^TCOM  serves  as  the  DOD  advocate  for  integrating  the  desired 
military  effects  of  information  operations.  Tliese  initiatives  represent  a  major 
step  in  transforming  our  military  and  in  implementing  the  new  strategic  triad 
envisioned  in  the  2001  Nuclear  Posture  Review. 

STRATCOM  will  also  continue  the  former  US  Space  Command's  legacy  of 
providing  Space  support  for  our  Joint  Team.  The  Global  Positioning  System 
offers  an  excellent  example  of  how  space  systems  enhance  our  Joint 
Warfighting  Team.   Tlie  Global  Positioning  System's  worldwide  position, 
navigation  and  timing  information  give  US  forces  an  all-weather,  precision 
engagement  capability.  As  an  example  of  one  application,  the  US  Army  fielded 
a  blue  force  tracking  system  -  a  space-based  tool  that  gives  commanders 
awareness  of  their  units'  locations. 

US  military  space  superiority  requires  continued  advances  in  space  control  and 
access  along  with  the  cooperation  of  our  allies.  The  European  Union,  for 
example,  is  developing  Galileo,  a  civil  satellite  navigation  system  that  risks  our 
enhancement  to  military  GPS.   As  currently  designed,  the  Galileo  signal  will 
operate  in  the  same  bandwidth  as  our  GPS  system's  civil  and  military  signals. 
When  Galileo  begins  operating,  its  signals  will  directly  overlay  the  spectrum 
associated  with  our  new  GPS  military  code.   Continued  negotiations  to  resolve 
this  political  issue  with  the  European  Union  is  essential  to  ensuring  our  joint 
team  maintains  the  advantages  of  GPS  in  combat. 

Concurrent  with  these  on -going  operations,  the  Services,  Joint  Staff  and 
Combatant  Commands  have  pursued  a  15  percent  major  headquarters 
reduction.  To  date,  DOD  headquarters  personnel  have  been  reduced  by  more 
than  1 1  percent.   Given  commitments  around  the  world  today,  any  further 
reductions  beyond  those  already  taken  could  adversely  impact  our  ability  to 
meet  the  demands  of  the  War  on  Terrorism.  Homeland  Security,  global  military 
presence  and  respond  to  any  new  threats.   Nonetheless,  the  Service  Chiefs. 
Combatant  Commanders  and  1  continue  to  explore  ways  to  reduce  and 
streamline  headquarters  functions. 

Antiterrorism/Force  Protection 

Antiterrorism/Force  Protection  remains  a  top  priority  for  all  commanders.   Our 
adversaries  -  unable  to  confront  or  compete  with  the  United  States  militarily  - 

9 


98 

have  £ind  will  continue  to  use  terrorist  acts  to  attack  US  citizens,  property,  and 
interests  -  to  include  military  bases  and  personnel.   In  the  FY03  budget,  the 
Antlterrorlsm/Force  Protection  portion  of  the  Combating  Terrorism  budget 
totaled  $9.3  billion.  The  terrorist  threat  environment  has  forced  us  to  maintain 
a  higher  worldwide  Force  Protection  Condition  for  longer  periods  of  time.   In  the 
short  term,  this  task  is  being  met  with  an  increase  in  manpower. 

For  example,  EUCOM  is  currently  at  Force  Protection  Condition  Bravo.   In  the 
short-term,  additional  troops  are  required  to  guard  US  military  bases 
throughout  EUCOM's  theater.    In  the  long-term,  SECDEF  directed  us  to  pursue 
new  technologies  that  will  reduce  the  manpower  footprint  while  improving  force 
protection,  as  well  as  seeking  host  nation  support  for  the  force  protection 


The  Combating  Terrorism  Readiness  Initiative  Fund  helped  provide  immediate 
Antlterrorism/Force  Protection  off-the-shelf  technology  to  Combatant 
Commanders  to  satisfy  emergent  requirements  that  could  not  wait  for  the 
normal  budget  process  or  long-term  technical  solutions.    Last  year's  funded 
systems  included  explosive  detection  systems  that  enhanced  access  control. 
Intrusion  detection  systems  that  provided  broader  perimeter  security  while 
reducing  manpower  requirements  and  chemical /biological  (Chem/Bio) 
detection  systems  to  improve  Installation  defense  capabilities.   The  Department 
authorized  $47  million  this  past  year  for  the  Combating  Terrorism  Readiness 
Initiative  Fund,  nearly  twice  the  FYOO  expenditure. 

To  support  the  Combatant  Commanders'  Antlterrorism/Force  Protection 
efforts,  the  Joint  Staff  Integrated  Vulnerability  Assessment  Teams  wiU  visit  95 
military  installations  worldwide  this  year.  Joint  Staff  Integrated  Vulnerability 
Assessment  Teams  assess  physical  security  measures,  infrastructure  support 
and  structural  vulnerabilities,  intelligence  collection  and  dissemination 
capabilities  and  the  installation's  ability  to  respond  to  terrorist  incidents.   Over 
500,000  personnel  received  "General  Antiterrorism  Awareness"  training  last 
year.  This  on-line  training  is  now  also  available  to  DOD  family  members. 

The  Defense  Department  also  finalized  prescriptive  antiterrorism  engineering 
and  construction  standards  to  Improve  survivability  of  our  personnel  from  the 
effects  of  an  explosive  device.   In  large  part  because  the  Pentagon  renovation 
project  followed  design  strategies  based  on  these  new  antiterrorism 
construction  standards,  the  damage  and  loss  of  life  from  the  Pentagon  attack 
was  significantly  reduced. 

US  Forces'  antiterrorism  capabilities  are  seen  as  a  standard  worldwide.   NATO 
sought  US  military  expertise  to  improve  antiterrorism  training  for  all  NATO 
forces.   As  a  result,  last  summer,  NATO  approved  policy  guidance  that  clarified 
Antiterrorism  responsibilities  for  Non-Article  5  operations,  delineated  minimum 
unit  Antiterrorism  plan  requirements  and  increased  emphasis  on  weapons  of 


10 


99 

mass  destruction  defense  and  consequence  management  planning.   The  US 
will  assist  NATO  to  implement  this  important  guidance. 

We  are  working  hard  to  expand  and  improve  our  capabilities  to  protect  our 
personnel  against  Chem/Bio  agents.   DOD  initiated  vaccinating  select 
segments  of  the  force  against  anthrax  and  smallpox.   Our  medical  treatment 
capabilities  must  expand  to  include  improved  treatment  against  Weapons  of 
Mass  Destruction  while  providing  additional  medical  countermeasures, 
surveillance  systems  and  response  teams. 

We  improved  overall  Joint  Force  readiness  by  our  recent  procurement  of 
improved  Chem/Bio  defensive  protective  clothing,  masks  and  detection 
systems.  Tliis  equipment  is  significantly  more  reliable,  better  at  agent 
detection  and  further  enhances  our  forces'  overall  capability  to  operate  in  the 
Chem/Bio  environment. 

In  the  area  of  installation  protection,  we  have  improved  detection  systems  plus 
consequence  management  assessment  and  training  capabilities  at  23  of  our 
overseas  bases.   In  addition,  we  performed  a  thorough  assessment  of  our 
detection  and  first  responder  capabilities  at  nine  key  CONUS  installations. 
These  lessons  learned  will  guide  development  of  a  comprehensive  plan  to 
improve  Chem/Bio  defense  at  more  than  200  bases  over  the  next  six  years. 
Although  we  improved  our  Chem/Bio  capabilities,  fighting  a  war  in  this 
environment  remains  a  serious  challenge.  TTierefore.  we  must  continue  to  fund 
research,  development  and  acquisition  projects  that  ensure  our  forces  can 
operate  successfully  in  this  adverse  environment. 

Readiness  for  Future  Operations 

The  readiness  of  our  general-purpose  forces,  whether  forward  deployed, 
operating  in  support  of  contingency  operations  or  in  Homeland  Defense, 
continues  to  be  solid.   US  Forces  are  well  trained  and  in  general,  possess  the 
personnel,  equipment  and  resources  needed  to  accomplish  the  military 
objectives  outlined  in  the  Defense  Strategy. 

In  light  of  the  current  pace  of  operations,  it  is  notable  that  active  US  Army 
divisions  maintain  high  readiness  levels.   US  Air  Force  aircraft  mission  capable 
rates  Improved  over  the  past  six  months.    US  Navy  forces  continue  to  meet 
readiness  goals  for  both  the  deployed  and  non-deployed  segments  of  the  force. 
The  US  Marine  Corps  is  ready  to  meet  the  demands  of  current  and  potential 
operations.   While  ongoing  global  operations  increased  the  workload  on  the 
Nation's  military  focus,  these  forces  remain  prepared  to  accomplish  their 
wartime  tasks. 

Materiel  readiness  has  improved  substantially  in  part,  due  to  the  tremendous 
support  of  Congress.   One  example  is  munitions,  where  recent  supplemental 


11 


100 

measures  have  allowed  Combatant  Commanders  to  increase  stockpiles  of  key 
all-weather  and  advanced  precision-guided  munitions.   These  munitions  enable 
the  Joint  Team  to  place  at  risk  a  wide  array  of  enemy  targets.   Funding 
increases  this  past  year  dramatically  Increased  precision-guided  munitions 
production  rates,  and  selected  production  rates  should  be  near  maximum 
capacity  by  August  2003.   Continued  Congressional  support  Is  critical  to  build 
munitions  and  materiel  inventories  to  levels  that  meet  warfightlng 
requirements. 

While  the  Force  is  ready,  this  past  year  significantly  stressed  the  readiness  of 
several  critical  enablers.   Our  intelligence  forces  operate  under  increased 
pressure  as  a  result  of  the  War  on  Terrorism.   Key  skill  sets  (like  targeteers, 
linguists  and  police-like  investigative  skills)  are  in  short  supply.   Recognizing 
this  fact,  our  intelligence,  surveillance  and  reconnaissance  forces  must  mature 
into  a  more  adaptable  and  flexible  contingency  collection  capability.   Many 
systems  were  developed  to  meet  a  Cold  War  threat  and  provide  excellent  force- 
on-force  collection  capability.  The  ingenuity  of  our  Soldiers,  Sailors,  Airmen, 
Marines  and  Coastguardsmen  has  allowed  many  systems  to  perform  a  valuable 
role  in  the  War  on  Terrorism. 

The  present  posture  of  the  military  intelligence  forces,  for  the  long-term  War  on 
Terrorism  is  improving,  but  many  challenges  remain.  This  global  war  clearly 
demonstrates  the  need  for  persistent  long-loiter  intelligence,  surveillance  and 
reconneiissance  platforms.   Military  intelligence  also  requires  low  observable 
unmanned  aerial  vehicle  systems,  close-access  sensors  and  a  greater  emphasis 
on  human  intelligence  collection.   In  addition,  all  intelligence  communities 
must  provide  an  information  architecture  that  provides  a  "push  and  pull" 
capability  for  the  joint  warfighter,  law  enforcement  and  counter-intelligence 
personnel.  We  must  shift  our  attitudes  away  from  the  mindset  of  a  "need  to 
know"  to  one  of  "need  to  share." 

Our  strategic  mobility  triad  (airlift,  seallft,  and  preposltloned  materiel)  provides 
us  the  capability  to  swiftly  move  forces  around  the  world.  The  US  remains  the 
only  nation  who  can  routinely  move  units  and  materiel  globally  with  confidence 
and  speed.  While  our  airlift  and  air  refueling  assets  performed  magnificently  in 
support  of  the  War  on  Terrorism,  this  high  operational  demand  is  accelerating 
the  aging  of  C-5  and  tanker  aircraft  and  created  unanticipated  wear  and  tear 
on  our  C-17  fleet.   As  a  result,  strategic  airlift  remains  one  of  our  top  priorities. 
The  C-17  Multi-Year  Procurement  plus  the  C-5  Re-engining  and  Reliability 
Enhancement  Programs  are  major  steps  to  meet  the  minimum  wartime  siirlift 
capacity  of  54.5  million  ton  miles/day.  The  follow-on  Multi-Year  Procurement 
with  Boeing  for  60+  C-  17s  will  bring  the  total  C-17  fleet  to  180  aircraft  in  2007. 
As  a  corollary  priority,  replacing  the  40-year-old  KC- 135  air  refueling  fleet  is  an 
essential  Joint  warfightlng  requirement. 


12 


101 

With  Congressional  support,  our  strategic  seallft  achieved  the  Mobility 
Requirements  Study-05  goals  for  surge  and  prepositioned  fleet  sealift 
requirements.   The  maintenance  of  our  organic  sealift  fleet  remains  a  high 
priority  to  ensure  we  can  deploy  sufficient  force  to  support  routine  and 
contingency  operations.  To  support  greater  levels  of  mobilization,  DOD  can 
also  access  addltionsil  US  commercial  shipping  through  the  Voluntary 
IntermodaJ  Sealift  Agreement.   This  Agreement  is  critical  to  ensure  that 
adequate  sealift  capacity  (and  associated  mariners)  is  available  to  support  DOD 
requirements  during  wartime.   We  are  working  closely  with  the  Department  of 
Tl-ansportation  to  ensure  these  requirements  can  be  met. 

Our  Prepositioned  Materiel  reduced  response  time  in  key  theaters.  This  critical 
readiness  program  enables  our  success  in  the  War  on  Terrorism  and  other 
contingency  operations. 

For  intratheater  mobility,  the  Department  recognizes  the  Joint  Venture,  High- 
Speed  Vessel  as  a  promising  delivery  platform.   This  vessel  employs  off-the- 
shelf  technology  and  can  operate  in  austere  locations  where  mature  seaports 
do  not  exist.   Combatant  Commanders  praise  this  vessel  for  rapidly  and 
efficiently  moving  personnel  and  equipment.   Future  operations  will  also  rely 
on  strong  enroute  infrastructures  that  support  strategic  mobility  requirements. 
The  dynamic  nature  of  the  War  on  Terrorism  and  other  potential  contingencies 
dictates  that  we  be  prepared  to  establish  new  enroute  bases  to  support 
deployments  to  austere  locations.   In  addition,  we  must  fully  fund  the  existing 
enroute  infrastructure  to  sustain  Its  capability.   Future  success  in  operations 
depends  upon  effective  training  today  and  tomorrow. 

Last  May,  I  wrote  the  Congress  about  my  grave  concern  over  the  adverse 
impacts  and  unforeseen  consequences  that  the  application  of  various 
environmental  laws  are  having  on  military  training  and  testing  activities  and 
consequentially  on  the  readiness  of  our  Armed  Forces.   Last  year.  Congress 
provided  temporary  relief,  but  only  for  one  statute.   While  measuring  the 
Impact  of  Inflexible  or  overbroad  environmental  requirements  is  difficult,  my 
professional  assessment  is  that  the  impacts  and  consequently  the  challenge  we 
face  in  providing  the  most  effective  training  weapons  and  sensors,  has  grown. 
Enough  is  known  right  now  to  convince  me  that  we  need  relief.   We  are  not 
abandoning  our  outstanding  stewardship  over  the  lands  entrusted  to  us  or 
retreating  from  environmental  protection  requirements.   We  are  trying  to 
restore  balance  when  environmental  requirements  adversely  affect  uniquely 
military  activities  necessary  to  prepare  for  combat.   I  ask  that  you  carefully 
consider  the  proposed  changes  that  the  DOD  brings  forward  and  provide  the 
tailored  relief  we  seek. 

The  current  pace  of  operations  and  future  potential  operations  continues  to 
require  the  Services  and  Combatant  Commanders  to  carefliUy  manage  assets 
and  units  that  are  in  high  demand,  but  in  small  numbers.   The  demand  for 

13 


102 

critical  capabilities  (such  as  manned  and  unmanned  intelligence,  surveillance 
and  reconnaissance  assets,  special  operations  forces,  intelligence  analysts  and 
linguists  and  command  and  control  assets)  increased  significantly  as  a  result 
of  multiple  contingencies.  We  will  continue  to  prioritize  the  tasks  given  these 
critical  units  to  preserve  our  surge  capability  for  future  operations. 

Our  number  one  asset  remains  the  men  and  women  serving  in  the  Armed 
Forces.  They  have  the  educational  depth,  the  innovative  spirit  and  mental 
agility  that  transforms  technology  into  an  effective  military  force.   Their  service 
and  dedication  deserve  our  full  support  to  seek  ways  to  improve  their  quality  of 
life.  TTie  Administration.  Congress  and  DOD  made  raising  their  standard  of 
living  a  top  priority.  This  year's  legislation  provided  an  across-the-board 
military  pay  raise  of  4. 1  percent  and  targeted  Increases  of  up  to  6. 5  percent  for 
junior  personnel.  This  year's  out-of-pocket  housing  expense  reduction  from 
1 1.3  percent  to  7.5  percent  is  a  sound  investment,  as  are  future  targeted  pay 
increases  based  on  the  Employment  Cost  Index  plus  one  half  percent.   Our 
troops  and  their  families  greatly  appreciate  continued  Congressional  support 
for  these  Initiatives,  plus  efforts  to  improve  family  and  unaccompanied 
housing.   Such  Congressional  action  directly  impacts  recruitment,  retention 
and  family  welfare.   1  view  these  all  as  inseparable  from  operational  combat 
readiness. 

No  discussion  of  those  who  serve  is  complete  without  mentioning  the 
exceptional  service  of  our  Guardsmen  and  Reservists.   In  the  first  15  months  of 
OEF.  nearly  85.000  of  them  served  on  active  duty.   Like  their  active  duty 
counterparts,  their  service  balamces  their  duty  to  the  Nation  and  their 
commitment  to  their  families.  These  citizen -warriors,  however,  must  also 
balance  an  obligation  to  their  civilian  employers.   These  past  few  months 
demonstrated  our  increased  reliance  on  our  Reserve  Components  to  defend  the 
Nation's  coastlines,  skies  and  hearUand.  as  well  as  protect  our  Interests 
worldwide.  We  also  gained  a  deeper  appreciation  that  today's  Reserve 
personnel  have  the  competence,  dedication  and  leadership  that  make  them 
indistinguishable  from  their  active-duty  counterparts 

Improving  Joint  Warfighting  Capabilities 

The  US  Armed  Forces'  ability  to  conduct  Joint  Warfare  Is  better  today  than 
anytime  in  our  history,  due  in  part  to  the  tremendous  support  of  Congress. 
Nonetheless,  memy  challenges  remain.   Our  Joint  Team  Is  comprised  of  the 
individual  warfighting  capabilities  of  the  Services.  To  improve  our  Joint 
Warfighting  capability,  we  must  maximize  the  capabilities  and  effects  of  the 
separate  units  and  weapons  systems  to  accomplish  the  mission  at  hand  - 
without  regard  to  the  color  of  the  uniforms  of  those  who  employ  them.   This 
challenge  demands  that  we  integrate  Service  core  competencies  together  in 
such  a  way  that  makes  the  whole  greater  than  the  sum  of  its  parts.   Our 


14 


103 

operational  architectures  must  be  inclusive  and  not  exclusive  in  terms  of 
capabilities  and  desired  effects.  We  must  integrate  -  not  deconflict  —  our 
operations. 

To  support  these  efforts,  on  1  October  2002.  we  changed  the  mission  and  focus 
of  JFCOM.   Today,  the  men  and  women  of  JFCOM  concentrate  on  improving 
our  Joint  Warfighting  capability  as  we  transform  to  meet  the  challenges  of  the 
21^'  Century.   In  the  future,  they  will  be  converting  strategy  and  policy 
guidEince  into  fielded  capabilities  at  the  operational  level  through  the 
development  of  Joint  concepts  and  Integrated  architectures. 

JFCOM  is  contributing  to  the  efforts  that  develop  and  define  the  Joint 
Operations  Concept,  and  the  related  Operational  Concepts,  that  will  link  our 
Defense  Strategy  and  our  emerging  Joint  Vision  with  Service  operational 
concepts.   It  will  help  senior  military  and  civilian  leaders  synchronize  Service 
modernization,  guide  experimentation  and  inform  acquisition  strategies  that 
will  guide  materiel  and  non-materiel  improvements  for  the  Joint  Force.   In 
support  of  this  effort,  JFCOM  conducts  joint  experimentation  to  validate  the 
operational  utility  of  joint  concepts.  The  results  will  drive  changes  across  all 
areas  of  doctrine,  organizations,  training,  materiel,  leadership  and  education, 
personnel  and  facilities. 

To  improve  Joint  Warfare,  we  must  focus  on  improving  the  accuracy  and 
timeliness  of  the  Commanders  and  Combatants'  Information  used  to  command 
and  control  the  Joint  Force.  With  shared  information,  Commcmders  can 
integrate  discrete  capabilities;  without  it,  they  must  segregate  operations  into 
time  and  space.   For  these  reasons,  we  must  emphasize  the  Joint  Operations 
Concept  to  solve  the  Interoperability  challenges  of  our  legacy  command  and 
control,  communication  and  computer  systems  and  ensure  future  systems  are 
'bom  joint." 

JFCOM  is  working  aggressively  towards  our  goal  of  seamless  C4ISR 
Interoperability  by  FY08.  To  achieve  that  goal,  JFCOM  will  set  the  operational 
requirements  and  prioritize  the  integrated  architectures  under  development  for 
future  battle  management  command  emd  control  systems.   In  addition,  JFCOM 
will  exercise  oversight  and  directive  authority  of  three  major  interoperability 
efforts:  the  Deployable  Joint  Command  and  Control  system.  Single  Integrated 
Air  Picture,  and  Family  of  Interoperable  Operational  Pictures.  The  Services  and 
Defense  agencies,  in  coordination  with  JFCOM.  will  retain  acquisition  authority 
for  these  and  all  other  battle  management  command  and  control  programs  and 

initiatives. 

t- 

We  are  convinced  that  the  Deployable  Joint  Commzmd  and  Control  system 
under  development  by  the  Navy  is  the  materiel  and  technological  solution  to     ' 
provide  intelligence  processing,  mission  planning  and  control  of  combat 
operations  for  the  Standing  Joint  Force  Headqusu-ters.   The  first  Deployable 

15 


104 

Joint  Command  and  Control  suite  is  scheduled  for  delivery  in  FY05.  Together 
with  the  Air  Force's  Family  of  Interoperable  Operational  Pictures,  the  Army's 
Single  Integrated  Air  Picture,  and  JFCOM's  Joint  Interoperability  and 
Integration  programs,  this  effort  will  allow  the  Joint  Force  to  truly  transform 
the  way  it  plans,  coordinates  and  executes  joint  operations.   We  need 
continued  Congressional  support  for  these  critical  battle  management 
command  and  control  programs. 

Our  experiences  In  Afghanistan  Illustrated  how  Important  timely  and 
responsive  commiand  and  control  was  to  control  sea,  land  and  air  forces  in 
areas  with  primitive  or  nonexistent  communications  infrastructures.  To  meet 
this  challenge  in  the  Arabian  Gulf  AOR,  CENTCOM  deployed  a  prototype  battle 
management  command  and  control  system  to  support  its  INTERNAL  LOOK 
exercise  in  Qatar  and  for  potential  future  operations.   DOD  will  leverage  the 
lessons  learned  from  this  prototype  to  help  guide  the  development  of  future 
battle  mancigement  command  and  control  systems. 

We  must  also  develop  command  suid  control  systems  that  can  rapidly  deploy 
anywhere  in  the  world,  to  support  Joint  and  coalition  forces  with  "plug  and 
play"  ease  and  that  are  also  scalable  to  respond  to  changing  circumstances. 
Programs  such  as  the  Joint  Tactical  Radio  System.  Mobile  User  Objective 
System  and  the  Joint  Command  and  Control  capability  (the  follow-on  to  Global 
Command  and  Control  System)  are  systems  that  were  truly  "bom  Joint."  We 
also  must  ensure  that  we  have  the  necessary  Military  Satellite  communications 
systems  that  can  provide  the  high  bandwidth  required  to  support  our  forces  in 
austere  environments  such  as  Afghanistan. 

The  role  of  command,  control,  communications,  computers,  intelligence, 
surveillance  and  reconnaissance  underscores  the  importance  of  managing  and 
developing  the  radio  frequency  spectrum.   Highly  mobile,  widely  dispersed 
forces  require  significant  radio  frequency  spectrum  to  operate  effectively  and 
efRciently.  This  military  requirement  is  increasing  at  the  same  time  that  the 
private  sector's  demand  for  spectrum  Is  growing.   While  it  Is  Important  to 
provide  additional  spectrum  to  meet  growing  Industry  requirements,  we  must 
ensure  the  availability  of  spectrum  to  provide  future  military  requirements. 

In  today's  dynamic  strategic  environment,  events  in  one  area  may  quickly  affect 
events  In  another.   This  reality  requires  a  more  responsive  planning  process  to 
capitalize  on  the  improved  C4  networks  zmd  where  deliberate-  and  crisis-action 
planning  complement  each  other.   Improvements  in  war  planning  are  required 
to  close  the  time  gap  between  deliberate-  and  crisis-action  planning.  These 
initiatives  range  from  changing  doctrine  to  developing  new  automated  planning 
tools  for  Time-Phased  Force  Deployment  Data  (TPFDD)  development.  The  Joint 
Staff,  in  collaboration  with  the  Combatant  Commanders'  staff,  is  developing  a 
single  shared  planning  process  for  deliberate  and  crisis  planning.  This 
initiative  wiU  develop  tools  and  processes  to  reduce  the  deliberate  planning 

16 


105 

cycle,  facilitate  the  transition  to  crisis  planning  and  exploit  new  technology  to 
respond  to  evolving  world  affairs.   The  end  results  will  be  greatly  improved 
flexibility  for  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  Defense. 

Improving  Joint  Warfighting  requires  more  than  technical  solutions.    My 
Exercise  Program  supports  the  Combatant  Commanders'  ability  to  sharpen  our 
Soldier.  Sailor,  Airmen.  Marines  and  Coastguard smen'  s  warfighting  edge.   It 
enables  operational  commanders  to  better  train  their  battle  staffs  and  forces  in 
Joint  and  combined  operations  while  evaluating  their  war  plans.   It  also  allows 
DOD  to  enhance  and  evaluate  interoperability  among  the  Services.    Exercises 
focusing  on  strategic,  national  and  theater-level  joint  tasks  consistently 
challenge  leaders  throughout  DOD.  Interagency  and  allies  with  timely  and 
relevant  scenarios  --  including  terrorism,  cyber  attack,  continuity  of 
government  and  operations.    Routinely,  these  exercises  provide  access  to 
critical  bases  of  operation  around  the  world  as  venues  for  practicing  impending 
joint/combined  operations.   TTiese  exercises  also  allow  the  opportunity  to 
enhance  the  capabilities  of  the  military  forces  of  allied  nations  and  ensure  their 
continued  support  in  the  War  on  Terrorism.  The  US  military  is  advancing  emd 
transforming  at  a  rate  that  greatly  outpaces  our  allies.  We  must  work  hard  to 
help  them  close  that  gap. 

Since  FY96.  the  number  of  joint  exercises  decreased  from  277  to  191.  This 
resulted  from  the  reduction  of  joint  exercise  transportation  funds  to  $319 
million.    In  order  to  balance  operational  and  exercise  requirements,  DOD  limits 
C-17  support  to  34.000  equivalent  flying  hours  and  RolI-on/Roll-off  ships  to 
1,100  steaming  days.   Any  further  decrease  in  funding  will  force  major 
reductions  or  cancellations  of  high-priority  joint/combined  exercises  and  have 
a  detrimental  impact  on  our  Joint  Warfighting  capability. 

The  Defense  Department  will  establish  a  Joint  National  Training  Capability  to 
support  joint  operations  by  leveraging  live,  virtual  and  constructive 
technologies.   As  a  first  step,  the  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Personnel  and 
Readiness  and  I  will  identify  specific  capabilities  for  the  establishment  of  the 
Joint  National  TVaining  Capability  by  1  October  2004.   The  Joint  National 
Training  Capability  will  then  exercise  DOD's  ability  to  execute  key  joint  training 
tasks  through  several  scheduled  annual  events. 

We  must  improve  our  Joint  Warfighting  capabilities  by  learning  from  previous 
operations.   The  Combatant  Commands,  Services  and  Joint  Staff  continue  to 
capture  and  apply  lessons  learned  from  Operation  ENDURING  FREEDOM. 
One  of  the  key  lessons  learned  was  the  positive  impact  Theater  Security 
Cooperation  had  on  our  operations  in  Afghanistan.   It  helped  create  the 
foundation  that  allowed  our  air,  naval  and  ground  forces  to  gain  access  to  the 
region's  airspace  and  basing.   Another  valuable  lesson  was  the  tremendous 
force  multiplier  of  merging  special  operations  forces  on  the  ground  vwth  space 


17 


106 

forces'  communications  and  navigation  capabilities  to  the  air  and  naval  forces' 
precision  attack  capabilities. 

In  addition  to  meeting  other  objectives.  Joint  Professional  Military  Education  is 
one  means  to  ensure  that  future  warfighters  capitalize  on  the  lessons  of  the 
past  to  improve  Joint  Warflghting.  Joint  Professional  Military  Education 
develops  US  military  leaders  capable  of  executing  the  War  on  Terrorism, 
improving  Joint  Warflghting  and  transforming  the  force.   Currently  there  is  an 
ongoing  Congressionally  mandated  independent  study  of  Joint  Officer 
Management  and  Joint  Professional  Military  Education.  This  study  will  provide 
valuable  insights  on  ways  to  improve  and  expand  joint  officer  development.  We 
anticipate  completion  of  this  study  in  early  2003. 

In  concert  with  the  independent  study,  the  Joint  Staff  is  also  exploring  ways  to 
improve  Joint  Officer  Management  and  Joint  Professional  Military  Mucation. 
We  identified  requirements  to  provide  joint  distance-learning  programs  to  our 
Reserve  Components  and  to  active  duty  Non-Commissioned  Officers  to  improve 
their  expertise  in  joint  operations.   In  a  similar  fashion,  I  directed  the  National 
Defense  University  to  revise  the  CAPSTONE  curriculum  for  newly  selected  Flag 
and  General  Officers.   My  goal  is  to  ensure  our  new  Flag  and  General  OfBcers 
gain  a  better  foundation  of  joint,  interagency  and  multi-national  operations  at 
the  operational  level. 

I  charged  the  Joint  Staff  with  developing  recommendations  for  several  areas  of 
Joint  Officer  Management  and  Joint  Professional  Military  Ekiucatlon  that  1 
believe  need  to  be  revised.  We  need  one  set  of  effective  and  enforceable  rules 
for  how  the  Services  assign  and  manage  Joint  billets.  We  must  also  bring  the 
tour  length  requirements  and  recognition  of  joint  credit  in  line  with  current 
operations.  The  Combatant  Commanders  and  I  should  be  the  driving  force  in 
the  production  of  Joint  Specialty  Officers.   Finally,  my  goal  is  to  make  the 
annual  report  to  Congress  a  more  meaningful  set  of  metrics  that  more 
accurately  reports  each  Service's  support  of  the  joint  community.  We  look 
forward  to  working  with  you  and  your  staffs  this  year,  to  incorporate  these 
changes  along  with  those  of  the  independent  study. 

In  addition,  joint  doctrine  provides  the  foundation  for  joint  education,  training 
and  exercises.  We  are  developing  Joint  doctrine  for  Homeland  Security.  Civil 
Support.  Joint  Close  Air  Support.  Joint  Planning.  Chemical.  Biological. 
Radiologlccil.  Nuclear  and  High  Yield  Ebqjloslves  Consequence  Management; 
and  Intelligence  Support  to  Targeting.   The  new  Joint  Doctrine  Electronic 
Information  System  ensures  the  warfighters  have  the  most  current  joint 
doctrine.  This  system  also  provides  joint  doctrine  to  education  and  training 
audiences.  Joint  doctrine  continues  to  improve  the  readiness  of  the  Joint 
Warfighter  to  operate  effectively  and  efficiently  in  a  complex  operational 
environment. 


18 


107 

TRANSFORMATION  OF  THE  US  ARMED  FORCES 

As  the  US  military  meets  the  challenges  of  the  21^"^  Century,  we  must  transform 
how  we  organize,  support  and  fight  as  joint  warfighters.   TVansforming  the 
Joint  Force  requires  embracing  intellectual,  cultural,  as  well  as  technological, 
change.  We  are  in  the  process  of  revising  our  Joint  Vision.  TTiis  new  vision  will 
provide  a  broad  description  of  what  our  Armed  Forces  must  and  can  become. 
From  our  Joint  Vision  and  the  Defense  Strategy,  we  are  crafting  a  Joint 
Operations  Concept.   It  will  link  the  tasks  given  our  Armed  Forces  to  the  Joint 
Vision,  joint  operating  concepts  and  Joint  Warfighter  architectures.   These  joint 
concepts  and  architectures  will  provide  further  guidance  to  each  Service. 

In  its  broadest  sense,  the  Joint  Operations  Concept  will  describe  how  the  Joint 
Force  will  operate,  while  helping  transform  the  US  Armed  Forces  to  a 
capabilities-based  force. 

The  Joint  Operations  Concept  cannot  shape  the  future  Joint  Force  alone.    It 
requires  experimentation  and  assessment  to  determine  the  value  of  the  Service 
and  Joint  warfighting  concepts  in  the  context  of  future  joint  operations  and  the 
future  environment.    From  these  efforts,  we  will  identify  the  doctrine, 
organization,  training,  materiel,  leadership  and  education,  personnel  and 
facilities  changes  needed  to  create  the  future  joint  force.   In  this  mEinner,  we 
can  scrutinize  current  capabilities  and  proposed  systems  to  highlight  gaps  and 
identify  overlapping  capabilities. 

Using  these  architectures,  the  Joint  Requirements  Oversight  Council  viill 
implement  methodologies  to  assess  both  legacy  and  proposed  systems  in  the 
aggregate.  As  a  result,  the  Joint  Requirements  Oversight  Council  will  define 
and  validate  desired  joint  capabilities  and  derive  mission  area  requirements. 
The  Joint  Requirements  Oversight  Council  shall  consider  the  full  range  of 
doctrine,  organizations,  training,  materiel,  leadership  and  education, 
personnel,  and  facilities  solutions  to  advance  joint  warfighting.   In  this  manner, 
the  Joint  Requirements  Oversight  Council  -will  further  reorient  our  force 
planning  to  a  capabilities-based  framework.   The  Joint  Operations  Concept  will 
allow  the  Joint  Requirements  Oversight  Council  to  adopt  a  synchronized, 
collaborative  and  integrated  systems  engineering  approach  to  sizing  and 
shaping  our  Forces. 

In  support  of  our  transformation  efforts,  JFCOM  spearheaded  the  Nation's  first 
major  joint  field  experiment  with  Millennium  Challenge  02.  Millennium 
Challenge  02  demonstrated  a  variety  of  new  concepts  and  systems  that  enabled 
critical  command  and  control,  collaborative  information  sharing  and  time- 
sensitive  targeting  capabilities.  These  systems  are  essential  to  the  fielding  of 
the  Standing  Joint  Force  Headquarters.   While  Millennium  Challenge  02 
focused  on  materiel  capabilities,  it  yielded  insights  critical  for  non-materiel 

19 


108 

changes  In  doctrine,  organizations,  training,  materiel,  leadership  and 
education,  personnel  and  facilities. 

One  example  was  the  Joint  Fires  Initiative,  which  offered  an  interim  automated 
capability  to  manage  time-sensitive  target  engagement.   The  Joint  Fires 
Initiative  enabled  the  Joint  Task  Force.  Component  Commanders  and  their 
staffs  to  use  availlable  information  technology,  web-based  collaborative  tools  to 
accelerate  the  Joint  Force's  ability  to  identify,  attack  and  assess  priority 
targets.  It  blended  intelligence,  surveillance  and  reconnaissance  resources, 
combat  units  and  Commanders'  decision  processes  to  permit  real-time 
execution. 

A  second  initiative  in  Millennium  Challenge  02  was  Joint  Enroute  Mission 
Planning  and  Rehearsal  System-Near  Term.  This  system  enables  Theater  and 
Joint  Task  Force  Conunanders  to  remain  connected  with  their  forward  and  rear 
headquarters  when  enroute  to  or  from  contingency  locations.   It  permits  a  wide 
scale  of  communications  and  collaborative  tools  to  prevent  a  "leadership 
blackout"  during  a  Commander's  travel. 

The  Joint  Fires  Initiative  and  Joint  Enroute  Mission  Planning  and  RehearsEil 
System-Near  Term  are  part  of  fielding  a  broader  Collaborative  Information 
Environment.   Today's  Collaborative  Information  Environment  is  powered  by 
high-speed  connectivity  and  real-time  collaborative  tools  to  share  information  - 
in  an  unprecedented  manner.  This  environment  will  permit  Commanders  to 
receive  more  accurate  information  faster.  As  such,  it  will  be  critical  part  for  US 
Forces  to  operate  faster  than  our  adversaries. 

To  meet  this  challenge,  the  Joint  Force  must  have  access  to  superior 
information.  This  requires  long-term  investment  to  meet  the  demands  of 
responsive,  targeted,  intrusive  and  persistent  collection.   Our  current 
operatlongil  environment  and  the  nature  of  these  dynamic  threats  demand  that 
our  Joint  Force  have  the  real-time  ability  to  monitor,  track,  characterize  and 
report  on  moving  objects  and  events.   We  must  capitalize  on  emerging 
technology  such  as  small,  expendable  satellites  and  long-dwell  UAVs.  These 
promising  platforms  will  enable  the  Joint  Force  to  gain  persistent  surveillance. 
The  information  gained  from  these  platforms  must  not  flow  into  stovepipes,  but 
must  be  part  of  a  "system  of  systems"  that  blends  with  human  and  technical 
data  from  strategic,  theater,  tactical  and  commercial  programs. 

With  this  improved  and  more  complete  data,  the  Intelligence  Community  must 
develop  tools  to  assist  in  information  management  that  can  accommodate 
"analytic  discovery"  and  data  visualization  techniques.   Our  military 
intelligence  community  requires  a  highly  skilled  work  force  trained  to  mine, 
manipulate,  integrate,  and  display  relevant  information.  To  effectively  employ 
these  collection  opportunities,  new  techniques  and  tools  must  be  developed. 


20 


109 

While  we  are  expending  considerable  effort  to  make  sure  we  procure  systems 
that  are  interoperable  across  the  services,  we  must  continue  placing  emphasis 
on  systems  that  allow  interoperability  with  our  Allies.   A  way  to  do  this  is  to 
allow  Allies  to  participate  in  many  of  our  procurement  projects.  This  will  have 
the  dual  advantage  of  helping  to  lower  project  cost  to  the  American  tsixpayer 
and  increasing  interoperability  with  those  allied  forces  that  will  accompany  us 
into  the  breach.   The  Joint  Strike  Fighter  reflects  one  success  story  of  allied 
and  US  combined  procurement.  The  Joint  Strike  Fighter  set  the  standard  for 
how  we  should  approach  new  procurements,  welcoming  key  Allied  participation 
in  the  development  and  production  of  future  systems.   Such  an  acquisition 
strategy  will  increase  interoperability,  help  Allied  transformation  and  reduce 
direct  US  development  costs. 

Transforming  military  forces  to  meet  a  dynamic  21^'  Century  security 
environment  is  not  a  unique  American  task.  At  the  Prague  summit,  NATO 
leaders  agreed  to  establish  an  Allied  Command  for  transformation  in  Norfolk. 
Virginia.  The  proposed  NATO  Command  will  work  with  JFCOM.  This  close 
and  cooperative  relationship  will  allow  the  US  and  our  NATO  allies  to  keep 
abreast  of  advances  in  contemporary  warfare. 

Our  efforts  to  improve  our  allies'  warflghting  capabilities  reach  far  beyond 
NATO.  The  Combatant  Commanders  and  1  share  the  Secretary  of  Defense's 
vision  of  a  long-term  plan  to  balance  burden  sharing,  leverage  US  technological 
superiority  and  use  a  proactive  Theater  Security  Cooperation  strategy  to 
transform  allied  forces  into  letheil,  offensive-minded,  combined-arms  forces. 
This  initiative  is  as  much  about  doctrine,  warfightlng  mindset  and 
organizational  structure  as  it  is  about  platforms  and  weapon  systems.  Theater 
Security  Cooperation  will  allow  the  US  to  modlty  force  structure  and  posture  to 
optimize  the  mobility,  lethality  and  interoperability  of  our  forward  forces. 

Conclusion 

With  Congress'  support,  this  past  year  we  have  made  progress  in  the  War  on 
Terrorism,  specifically,  and  overall  capabilities.  Al  Qaida  and  their  global 
network  were  not  created  in  a  single  day,  but  over  a  decade.  At  the  same  time, 
the  Nation's  Armed  Forces  must  be  prepared  for  other  threats  to  our  Interests. 
Confronting  them  will  require  determined  and  disciplined  use  of  all 
instruments  of  American  power.   Congressional  support  ensures  that  our 
military  forces  are  the  most  competent  and  capable  military  tools  possible. 

The  men  and  women  of  our  Armed  Forces  have  performed  in  a  magnificent 
manner  this  past  year.  They  stand  ready  for  the  challenges  ahead.   They 
deserve  our  best  elTorts  in  training,  equipping  and  caring  for  them  and  their 
families.   Thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  provide  my  report  on  our  Nation's 
finest  -  our  Soldiers,  Sailors.  Airmen.  Marines  and  Coastguardsmen. 


21 


QUESTIONS  AND  ANSWERS  SUBMITTED  FOR  THE 

RECORD 


February  5,  2003 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  ABERCROMBIE 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Please  provide  cost  estimates  with  respect  to  current  deploy- 
ments. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Based  on  current  mobilization  levels  and  projected  demobilization 
schedules,  we  anticipate  that  on  average  approximately  148,700  reserve  component 
members  will  be  mobilized  on  active  duty  during  FY  2003  at  an  estimated  incremen- 
tal cost  of  $11.8  billion.  This  cost  estimate  includes  all  pay  and  allowances  as  well 
as  personnel  support  costs  (e.g.,  medical,  TDY  costs)  associated  with  mobilized  Re- 
serve and  Guard  members.  We  anticipate  mobilizing  about  223,000  reserve  compo- 
nent members  in  FY  2003  and  current  draft  projections  show  demobilization  reach- 
ing a  plateau  by  the  middle  of  FY  2004. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Can  you  tell  me  how  much  you  are  putting  forward  on  the 
Northern  Command? 

Dr.  Zakheim.  The  FY  2003  NORTHCOM  funding  totals  $110  million  and  includes 
$70  million  for  operation  and  maintenance,  $15  million  for  procurement  of  equip- 
ment, and  $25  million  for  construction  of  headquarters  facilities. 

The  DOB  FY  2003  Supplemental  Request  included  $20  million  for  NORTHCOM 
to  fund  expanded  responsibilities  within  its  charter  in  order  to  achieve  full  operating 
capabihty  in  FY  2003. 

The  FY  2004  request  totals  $148  million,  which  includes  $143  million  for  oper- 
ation and  maintenance  support  and  $5  million  for  procurement  of  equipment. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  I'm  still  interested  in  Northern  Command,  especially  now  that 
the  command  has  been  up  and  running  since  last  October.  Last  year,  the  House 
added  language  to  the  Defense  Authorization  Act  requesting  a  report  on  the  imple- 
mentation, organization,  and  budget  requirements  of  USNORTHCOM,  and  I  look 
forward  to  seeing  that  report  within  the  next  month.  The  budget  information  that 
the  committee  has  been  provided  thus  far  doesn't  specifically  break  out  the  Fiscal 
Year  2004  funding  for  USNORTHCOM.  I  would  like  to  know  the  overall  FY04  fund- 
ing request  for  Northern  Command  and  where  it  is  in  the  budget.  In  FY03,  the 
money  was  divided  between  several  different  line  items  in  the  budget — is  this  the 
case  again  in  FY04?  And  last,  General  Myers  discusses  Northern  Command  in  his 
testimony  and  cites  "habitual  relationships"  established  with  federal  and  state  agen- 
cies. Could  you  please  elaborate  on  Northern  Command's  interaction  with  civilian 
agencies  and  the  National  Guard  and  what  protocols,  if  any,  have  been  set  up  for 
certain  incidents  or  emergencies. 

General  Myers.  The  total  fiscal  year  2004  funding  request  for  United  States 
Northern  Command  (USNORTHCOM)  headquarters  and  subordinate  units  follows: 


HQ  United  States  Northern  Command  $80.5M 

Joint  Force  Headquarters  Homeland.  Security $21. 2M 

Joint  Task  Force-Civil  Support  $10.5M 

Joint  Task  Force-Six  $8.0M 

Total $120.2M 

In  fiscal  year  2004,  USNORTHCOM's  request  is  again  divided  between  Air  Force 
Operations  and  Maintenance  and  Other  Procurement. 

USNORTHCOM's  partnerships  at  the  local,  state,  and  federal  levels  are  key  to 
executing  its  homeland  defense  and  military  assistance  to  civil  authorities  missions. 
These  partnerships  allow  USNORTHCOM  to  plan,  exercise  and  operate  on  a  routine 
basis  with  Federal,  State  and  local  authorities  plus  first  responders.  By  allowing  the 
military  and  civil  experts  to  work  together  in  a  recurring  level  allows  them  to  force 
a  "habitual"  and  beneficial  relationship.  The  Command  has  established  a  Joint 
Interagency  Coordination  Group  to  coordinate  interagency  plans,  exercises  and  oper- 
ations. The  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  Central  Intelligence  Agency,  the  Fed- 
eral Emergency  Management  Agency  and  other  agencies  have  assigned  full-time  li- 
aison officers  to  USNORTHCOM.  In  addition,  in  February  2003,  the  Command  exer- 
cised with  55  local,  state  and  federal  agencies  across  a  broad  spectrum  of  scenarios. 

(113) 


114 

United  States  Northern  Command's  success  is  linked  to  a  strong  relationship  with 
the  National  Guard  Bureau  (NGB).  Through  the  NGB  headquarters, 
USNORTHCOM  communicates  with  state  units  for  planning  and  to  maintain  situa- 
tional awareness  of  National  Guard  activities. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Please  provide  cost  estimates  with  respect  to  current  deploy- 
ments. 

Dr.  Zakheim.  Based  on  current  mobilization  levels  and  projected  demobilization 
schedules,  we  anticipate  that  on  average  approximately  148,700  reserve  component 
members  will  be  mobilized  on  active  duty  during  FY  2003  at  an  estimated  incremen- 
tal cost  of  $11.8  billion.  This  cost  estimate  includes  all  pay  and  allowances  as  well 
as  personnel  support  costs  (e.g.,  medical,  TDY  costs)  associated  with  mobilized  Re- 
serve and  Guard  members.  We  anticipate  mobilizing  about  223,000  reserve  compo- 
nent members  in  FY  2003  and  current  draft  projections  show  demobilization  reach- 
ing a  plateau  by  the  middle  of  FY  2004. 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  BY  IMR.  BARTLETT 

Mr.  Bartlett.  The  2001  Quadrennial  Defense  Review  identified  the  following 
baseline  judged  to  be  moderate  operational  risk: 

12     Aircraft  Carriers 

12    Amphibious  Ready  Groups 

55    Attack  Submarines 

116  Active  and  Reserve  Surface  Combatants 

Please  provide  the  committee  an  update  of  the  number  of  battle  force  ships,  by 
type  or  class,  required  to  meet  current  defense  planning  guidance. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  In  the  2001  Quadrennial  Defense  Review,  the  Department 
took  the  first  steps  in  moving  to  a  capabilities-based  planning  approach,  which  fo- 
cuses less  on  the  size  of  service  combat  structures  and  more  on  the  capabilities 
needed  to  execute  the  U.S.  Defense  Strategy.  Since  the  QDR,  the  Department  has 
made  further  strides  in  evolving  its  planned  combat  organizations  to  meet  strategic 
guidance.  For  example,  the  Navy  is  moving  to  a  total  of  37  strike  groups  to  carry 
out  worldwide  operations — 12  Carrier  Strike  Groups,  12  Expeditionary  Strike 
Groups,  9  Strike  and  Missile  Defense  Action,  Groups,  and  SSGNs  to  provide  covert 
strike  power  and  SOF  insertion.  In  all,  the  Navy's  "Battle  Force"  will  reach  305 
ships  by  Fiscal  Year  2009.  This  force  meets  the  demands  of  the  Defense  Strategy. 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  MCKEON 

Mr.  McKeon.  As  you  know.  Homeland  Defense  is  a  crucial  part  of  the  President's 
budget.  My  staff  was  recently  briefing  regarding  a  system  that  could  benefit  the 
California  National  Guard.  This  system  called  the  AirSite  Backhaul  System — pro- 
duced by  a  Company  called  AirNet  Communications — would  allow  for  states  to  have 
secure  communications  up  and  running  should  a  terrorist  strike  occur.  The  natural 
organization  for  this  operation  would  be  the  National  Guard.  Would  you  please  pro- 
vide me  and  my  staff  with  the  name  of  an  individual  that  will  assist  in  identifying 
the  right  location  to  fund  this  project?  I  am  aware  that  the  California  National 
Guard  has  been  looking  at  utilizing  this  equipment.  I  would  appreciate  an  update 
as  to  where  the  Department  of  Defense  believes  this  product  can  be  best  utilized. 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Representative  McKeon,  the  Office  of  the  Assistant  Sec- 
retary of  Defense  for  Homeland  Defense,  Paul  McHale,  can  assist  you  in  examining 
options  for  employment  and  funding  for  this  proposed  technology. 

Mr.  McKeon.  I  am  deeply  concerned  about  the  industrial  base  capability  of  the 
Department  of  Defense.  Each  year,  we  are  hemorrhaging  industry  capability.  I  want 
to  raise  to  your  attention  a  company  in  Southern  California  called  Phaostron.  This 
small  sole  source  defense  contractor  makes  valves  and  what  I  call  widgets  for  nearly 
every  aircraft  in  our  fleet.  Unfortunately,  they  have  been  targeted  by  the  Environ- 
mental Protection  Agency  for  a  fine  that  is  highly  questionable.  If  the  EPA  is  al- 
lowed to  proceed  with  their  "fine",  this  small  sole  source  contractor  will  be  forced 
out  of  business  by  the  EPA  and  force  the  Department  of  Defense  to  pay  a  larger 
penalty  than  the  one  that  the  EPA  is  trying  to  administer.  In  my  opinion,  this  sim- 
ply does  not  make  good  fiscal  sense  when  we  are  trying  to  keep  deficits  down  and 
pay  for  a  war  on  terrorism  and  potentially  one  with  Iraq.  Mr.  Secretary,  will  you 
and  DUSD(IP)  Suzanne  Patrick  take  a  personal  interest  in  this  case  and  report  back 
to  me  on  how  the  Department  can  assist  in  keeping  this  Southern  California  con- 
tractor strong  and  viable? 


115 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  While  the  Department  of  Defense  has  no  role  in  Environ- 
mental Protection  Agency  enforcement  actions,  we  are  concerned  about  the  defense 
industrial  base  and  particularly  about  any  potential  loss  of  a  sole  source  domestic 
supplier.  Phaostron's  situation  was  brought  to  the  Department's  attention  when  rep- 
resentatives from  the  company  contacted  the  Deputy  Under  Secretary  of  Defense 
(Industrial  Policy)  in  December,  2002.  Subsequently,  we  conducted  a  thorough  re- 
view of  the  Department's  supplier  base  for  the  products  supplied  by  Phaostron,  with 
input  from  the  military  departments  and  defense  agencies.  We  were  pleased  to  learn 
that  there  are  cost-competitive  alternative  sources  for  those  products. 

As  Phaostron  resolves  its  EPA  difficulties,  we  trust  that  the  company  will  con- 
tinue to  participate  in  the  DOD  market. 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  REYES 

Mr.  Reyes.  After  September  11"^,  military  forces  were  deployed  to  the  United 
States-Canadian  border,  for  the  purposes  of  detecting  possible  terrorist  activities. 
Their  actions  were  limited  to  sighting  and  reporting,  but  they  were  prohibited  from 
surveillance  and  monitoring  activities — in  essence,  they  could  report  suspicious  ac- 
tivities but  could  not  keep  an  eye  on  the  situation.  Due  to  the  rugged  terrain,  geo- 
graphic isolation,  and  long  response  time  in  many  of  the  areas,  the  individuals  could 
be  long  gone  by  the  time  law  enforcement  arrived.  It  would  seem  better  to  allow 
troops  greater  responsibilities  while  waiting  for  the  arrival  of  the  Border  Patrol.  If 
the  President  decides  to  go  to  war  with  Iraq,  and  military  units  are  activated  for 
purposes  similar  to  those  following  September  11"'\  what  is  your  position  on  the  de- 
tection and  monitoring  responsibilities  and  capabilities  of  those  deployed  troops? 

General  Myers.  The  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  have  a  mission  that  is 
separate  and  distinct  from  that  of  the  Border  Patrol.  Although  there  are  some  simi- 
larities in  their  tasks,  the  Armed  Forces'  mission  is  limited  by  law  to  assisting  the 
Border  Patrol  in  various  roles.  The  Department  of  Homeland  Security  has  not  indi- 
cated a  requirement  for  additional  military  support  for  border  security,  and  I  do  not 
see  a  need  at  this  time  to  modify  how  we  use  our  Armed  Forces  to  augment  our 
Border  Patrol. 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  BY  MS.  TAUSCHER 

Ms.  Tauscher.  I  was  concerned  to  read  in  the  Los  Angeles  Times  on  February 
3  that  the  Pentagon  has  launched  a  $1.26  billion  program  to  design  computers  to 
determine  when  nuclear  weapons  might  be  used  to  destroy  deeply  buried  targets  po- 
tentially harboring  chemical,  biological  and  even  nuclear  agents. 

At  a  time  when  this  committee  has  still  not  received  the  report  required  in  the 
Fiscal  Year  2003  defense  authorization  bill  on  the  potential  uses  of  the  robust  earth 
penetrator  or  whether  or  not  we  can  still  use  conventional  weapons  to  defeat  hard- 
ened targets,  I  am  deeply  concerned  that  the  Administration  is  pushing  the  envelope 
on  trying  to  design  a  new  generation  of  smaller,  more  usable  nuclear  weapons,  cre- 
ating a  more  unstable  and  dangerous  world. 

Disconnected  from  the  practical  use  we  made  of  conventional  force,  diplomacy  or 
inspections  in  Afghanistan  and  to  deal  with  Iraq  and  North  Korea,  the  Administra- 
tion, through  a  series  of  pronouncements — from  the  Nuclear  Posture  Review,  the 
National  Security  Strategy  and  most  recently,  the  National  Strategy  to  Combat 
Weapons  of  Mass  Destruction — has  outlined  a  security  posture  for  the  United  States 
that  puts  the  emphasis  on  preemptive  strikes  and  on  the  offensive  use  of  nuclear 
weapons. 

I'd  like  to  know  A)  whether  or  not  the  program  described  in  the  article  is  under 
development  and  B)  what  circumstances  you  believe  would  justify  the  use  of  nuclear 
weapons  by  the  United  States? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  The  Department  does  not  have  a  program  under  develop- 
ment as  described  in  the  Los  Aiigeles  Times  article  of  February  3,  2002,  "Making 
Nuclear  Bombs  Usable."  The  article  creates  an  incorrect  impression  that  the  Admin- 
istration is  deliberately  trying  to  lower  the  nuclear  threshold  and  make  nuclear 
weapons  more  usable.  The  primary  basis  of  the  article  is  a  Defense  Threat  Reduc- 
tion Agency  (DTRA)  request  for  proposals  related  to  a  10-year  multi-source  research 
effort  aimed  at  better  understanding  and  exploiting  potential  weaknesses  of  hard- 
ened and  deeply  buried  facilities  such  as  chemical  and  biological  weapons  bunkers 
and  finding  means  to  defeat  them.  The  DTRA  study  aims  at  providing  the  informa- 
tion we  need  to  develop  improved  non-nuclear  means  to  disable  or  destroy  such  fa- 
cilities. 


116 

The  article  selectively  extracts  language  from  a  DTRA  Indefinite  Delivery/Indefi- 
nite Quantity  (ID/IQ)  contract  solicitation  (DTRA01-03-R-0005)  posted  January  29, 
2003,  and  ascribed  the  estimated  contract  ceiling  value  to  the  nuclear  earth  penetra- 
tor.  There  are  similarities  between  words  in  the  article  and  the  hard  and  deeply 
buried  target  defeat  Advanced  Concept  Technology  Demonstrator  sample  task  State- 
ment of  Work.  The  maximum  amount  assigned  to  the  overall  10-year  Weapons  of 
Mass  Destruction  ID/IQ  contract  is  $1.26  billion,  that  could  be  a  figure  that  matches 
the  "program"  amount  referred  to  in  the  article. 

However,  the  ID/IQ  contract  covers  many  tasks  unrelated  to  efforts  that  would 
be  related  to  a  nuclear  earth  penetrator.  There  is  one  task  that  includes  a  small 
effort  related  to  the  effects  and  consequence  analysis  of  penetrator  weapons  (conven- 
tional and  non-conventional)  which  is  what  the  newspaper  article  quoted.  Its  esti- 
mated value  is  between  $200K  to  $400K  per  year,  maximum.  None  of  the  activity 
under  the  DTRA  contract  would  qualify  as  a  development  program  under  the  De- 
partment's acquisition  system. 

Ms.  Tauscher.  What  circumstances  [do]  you  believe  would  justify  the  use  of  nu- 
clear weapons  by  the  United  States? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  As  stated  in  the  DOD  Annual  Report  to  the  President  and 
the  Congress  (August  2002),  "Nuclear  forces  continue  to  play  a  critical  role  in  the 
defense  of  the  United  States,  its  allies  and  friends.  They  provide  credible  capabili- 
ties to  deter  a  wide  range  of  threats,  including  weapons  of  mass  destruction  and 
large-scale  conventional  military  force.  Nuclear  capabilities  possess  unique  prop- 
erties that  give  the  United  States  options  to  hold  at  risk  classes  of  targets  important 
to  achieve  strategic  and  political  objectives." 

Under  U.S.  law,  the  President  is  the  only  person  entrusted  with  the  authority  to 
direct  the  use  of  nuclear  weapons.  I  can  only  speculate  that  any  U.S.  President 
would  consider  using  nuclear  weapons  only  in  the  most  serious  of  circumstances  and 
in  which  the  stakes  involved  were  extremely  high. 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  BY  MS.  SUSAN  DAVIS 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  As  you  know,  particularly  in  the  War  on  Terrorism, 
linguistic  ability  is  invaluable  to  the  military. 

Can  you  please  detail  the  amount  you  are  requesting  in  Fiscal  Year  (FY)  2004 
and  throughout  the  FYDP  to  provide  training  for  defense  linguists? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  The  FY  2004  budget  submission  requests  $81.9  million  in 
FY  2004  and  $471.6  million  over  the  FYDP  for  operation  of  the  Defense  Language 
Institute  Foreign  Language  Center  (DLIFLC)  to  conduct  basic  language  instruction 
for  initial  entry  students  and  foreign  area  officers  plus  continuing  learning  pro- 
grams for  active  and  reserve  forces.  Estimated  additional  funding  of  $18.0  million 
in  FY  2004  and  $90.0  million  over  the  FYDP  is  contained  within  Combatant  Com- 
mand, Service  and  Agency  requests  to  provide  for  maintenance  and  enhancement 
of  language  skills. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Is  that  training  done  only  at  DOD-owned  institutions? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  The  DLIFLC  provides  instruction  through  interdepart- 
mental agreements  and  commercial  language  services  for  certain  languages  with 
low  volume  of  student  requirements.  Major  commands  within  the  military  depart- 
ments and  Defense  agencies  frequently  contract  with  commercial  language  schools 
or  study  abroad  programs. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Specifically,  how  many  linguists  will  that  funding  pro- 
vide and  in  which  areas?  Can  you  describe  in  general  the  retention  of  personnel 
with  these  skills? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Approximately  3000  initial  entry  personnel  and  foreign  area 
officers  will  receive  basic  language  instruction  in  FY  2004.  The  DLIFLC  funding  will 
also  provide  for  non-resident  maintenance  and  enhancement  training  of  about  3,500 
personnel.  Funding  from  Service  Departments  and  Agencies  will  provide  additional 
initial  and  continuing  language  education  to  about  4000  military  and  civilian  per- 
sonnel. Basic  language  instruction  will  be  conducted  in  over  50  languages  with  em- 
phasis on  the  languages  needed  in  the  Iraqi  Freedom  and  Global  War  on  Terrorism 
campaigns. 

The  estimated  retention  rate  for  all  language  specialists  beyond  first  term  enlist- 
ments is  40%. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Does  DOD  cooperate  with  or  share  personnel  with 
other  federal  agencies  to  obtain  on  a  permanent  or  temporary  basis  personnel  with 
linguistic  skills? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Government  agencies  frequently  cooperate  to  utilize  the  lin- 
guist skills  of  personnel.  Through  interagency  coordination,  both  military  and  civil- 


117 

ian  personnel  are  shared,  particularly  when  linguistic  skills  are  required  in  foreign 
languages  for  which  no  government  agency  has  requirements. 

Other  government  agencies  share  personnel  who  have  specific  linguistic  skills 
with  DOD  when  such  skills  are:  available  within  the  agency,  required  and  requested 
by  DOD,  and  not  mission  critical  to  the  owning  agency. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Is  there  linguistic  capability  that  is  needed  but  that 
the  Department  does  not  have  the  necessary  resources?  If  so,  do  you  have  a  plan 
to  address  this  need? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Language  is  a  scarce  commodity  in  high  demand  under  the 
best  of  circumstances.  Naturally,  there  are  some  languages  that  are  scarcer  than 
others.  While  our  personnel  are  fluent  in  almost  every  language  of  the  world,  in- 
creased demand/OPTEMPO  has  put  a  strain  on  these  resources. 

Language  is  a  key  Defense  capability.  It  is  difficult  to  maintain  an  organic  capa- 
bility sufficiently  robust  to  meet  present  and  emerging  needs.  Therefore,  in  the  in- 
terim we  rely  on  contracted  linguists  to  supplement  our  force:  However,  we  are  re- 
viewing language  assets  in  a  holistic  manner  and  developing  an  end-state  approach 
for  active,  reserve  (to  include  a  new  Individual  Ready  Reserve  program),  contractor, 
and  civiUans  to  include  those  employed  by  DOD  and  those  who  might  be  able  to 
augment  as  necessary,  including  local  ethnic  communities. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  What  percentages  of  DOD  linguists  are  uniformed  and 
civilian? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Based  upon  a  population  of  11,000  military  and  civil  servant 
language  specialists,  82%  are  in  uniform  and  18%  are  civilian. 

Ms.  Davis  of  California.  Have  you  considered  whether  the  active  component  or 
the  reserve  component  is  the  best  place  for  these  skills,  and  if  not,  could  you  please 
give  me  your  thoughts  on  whether  the  reserve  component  is  a  better  place? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Both.  The  military  services  operate  under  the  concept  of 
"the  total  force."  As  such,  we  wholeheartedly  embrace  the  leveraging  of  assets  and 
application  of  complementary  skills  in  the  accomplishment  of  this,  and  any  other 
mission,  whether  in  the  Active  or  Reserve  component. 

Further,  we  are  enhancing  our  Direct  Entry  Individual  Ready  Reserve  (IRR)  pro- 
gram to  accommodate  individuals  whose  civilian  professions  and  skills  are  in  de- 
mand and  who  express  a  desire  to  serve,  thus  further  augmenting  the  total  force 
by  providing  trained  assets  to  support  military  missions. 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  MILLER 

Mr.  Miller.  A  new  rovmd  of  base  closings  seems  to  be  on  track  despite  the  in- 
creased tempo  of  our  armed  forces.  Are  you  still  committed  to  reducing  facility  infra- 
structure by  25%? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  No,  the  Department  is  not  committed  to  any  specific  level 
of  inft-astructure  reduction.  As  I  stated  in  my  November  15,  2002  memorandum, 
"Transformation  Through  Base  ReaUgnment  and  Closure,"  BRAC  2005  should  be 
the  means  by  which  we  reconfigure  our  current  infrastructure  into  one  in  which 
operationed  capacity  maximizes  both  warfighting  capability  and  efficiency.  I  did  not 
specify  any  infrastructure  reduction  targets  to  achieve  this  goal. 

Mr.  Miller.  I  am  aware  of  the  infrastructure  and  force  structure  process,  but  if 
you  are  continuing  to  present  this  theory  of  excess,  then  you  must  have  something 
in  mind  to  back  up  your  beliefs.  Where  do  you  expect  to  find  this  25  percent? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  We  believe,  for  example,  that  more  extensive  study  of  joint 
basing  use  and  cross  Service  functional  analyses  could  provide  better  utilization  of 
our  infrastructure  than  the  Service-specific  analyses  conducted  in  previous  BRAC 
rounds.  Only  a  thorough  BRAC  analysis  can  indicate  where  unnecessary  infrastruc- 
ture can  be  precisely  and  prudently  eliminated. 

Mr.  Miller.  Do  you  see  a  continued  role  for  Special  Operation  Forces  and  more 
specifically,  a  joint  force  concept  whereas  we  will  no  longer  have  Air  Force  Bases 
and  Army  Forts  but  joint  force  complexes? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Yes,  I  see  a  continuing  role  for  Special  Operations  Forces. 
During  the  upcoming  BRAC  process,  the  Department  will  look  specifically  at  cross- 
service  fiinctionality.  Only  through  a  complete  review  process  will  we  be  able  to  as- 
sess adequately  the  best  course  of  action  to  support  the  expanding  joint  force  con- 
cept. 

General  M^'ERS.  Yes,  I  see  a  continuing  role  for  Special  Operations  Forces.  During 
the  upcoming  BRAC  process,  the  Department  will  look  specifically  at  cross-service 
functionality.  Only  through  a  complete  review  process  will  we  be  able  to  assess  ade- 
quately the  best  course  of  action  to  support  the  expanding  joint  force  concept. 


118 

Mr.  Miller.  What  is  the  status  of  implementing  new  testing  and  evaluation  pol- 
icy legislated  in  the  FY  2003  Defense  Authorization  Act  that  mandates  the  creation 
of  a  director  for  the  newly  established  Test  &  Evaluation  Resource  Enterprise?  And 
if  that  three-star  general  is  expected  to  report  to  Secretary  Aldridge,  how  does  that 
impact  the  efficacy  of  the  director  of  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation,  which  reports 
to  you? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  The  Department  is  currently  staffing  a  charter  for  this  orga- 
nization and  intends  to  formally  establish  the  Defense  Test  Resource  Management 
Center  (DTRMC)  in  April.  The  DTRMC  reporting  structure  will  not  adversely  affect 
the  efficacy  of  Director,  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation  (DOT&E)  because  the 
DTRMC  will  coordinate  with  DOT&E  all  test,  and  evaluation  facility  and  resource 
matters  that  impact  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation,  Live  Fire  Test  and  Evalua- 
tion, and  Joint  Test  and  Evaluation.  The  Director,  OT&E  will  still  maintain  his 
independence  in  reporting  to  me  on  all  Test  and  Evaluation  matters  under  his  pur- 
view. 

Mr.  Miller.  What  is  the  perceived  role  for  government  in  developmental  testing? 
And  why  does  the  Department  of  Defense  permit  developmental  testing  to  be  con- 
ducted at  non-governmental  sites  when  government  facilities  are  available? 

Secretary  RUMSFELD.  Developmental  testing  verifies  a  system's  performance,  pro- 
vides an  indication  of  technical  maturity,  and  confirms  the  design  meets  specifica- 
tions. The  Department  of  Defense  has  a  wide-range  of  responsibilities  in  this  regard, 
including  the  planning,  conduct,  and  oversight  of  the  developmental  testing  process. 
Program  Managers  have  a  responsibility  to  develop  a  well  executed,  cost-effective 
test  plan.  They  have  the  flexibility  to  use  either  contractor  or  government  facilities, 
as  appropriate  to  fit  the  particular  requirements  of  individual  programs.  This  mini- 
mizes the  time  it  takes  to  satisfy  test  objectives,  consistent  with  sound  business 
management  practice. 

Mr.  Miller.  As  you  know,  last  year  seven  countries  were  invited  to  join  NATO. 
Do  you  believe  these  countries  can  immediately  contribute  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
US  Armed  Forces? 

Secretary  Rumsfeld.  Yes.  These  seven  countries  have  demonstrated  their  ability 
to  contribute  immediately  through  their  military  deployments  to  support  Balkans 
operations  (SFOR  and  KFOR),  Operation  Enduring  Freedom  (OEF),  the  Inter- 
national Security  Assistance  Force  (ISAF)  in  Afghanistan,  and  the  war  on  Iraq.  All 
seven  invitees  have  put  their  personnel  in  the  field  to  support  the  U.S.  and  NATO. 
These  contributions  include  military  police  in  Kosovo,  hosting  U.S.  tanker  aircraft, 
deployment  of  Special  Operations  Forces  to  Afghanistan  to  support  OEF,  deploy- 
ment of  an  explosive  ordnance  disposal  (EOD)  team  to  ISAF  in  Afghanistan,  and 
deployment  of  NBC  defense  units  for  the  war  on  Iraq. 

Mr.  Miller.  A  new  round  of  base  closings  seems  to  be  on  track  despite  the  in- 
creased tempo  of  our  armed  forces.  Are  you  still  committed  to  reducing  facility  infra- 
structure by  25  percent? 

General  Myers.  I  am  committed  to  reducing  and  realigning  facility  infrastructure, 
where  appropriate.  The  April  1998  Report  of  the  Department  of  Defense  on  Base 
Realignment  and  Closure  (BRAC)  estimated  approximately  23  percent  of  DOD's 
base  capacity  is  excess  to  support  forces  projected  for  2003.  This  is  only  an  estimate. 
Only  a  thorough  BRAC  analysis  can  indicate  how  much  and  where  unnecessary  in- 
frastructure can  be  prudently  realigned  or  eliminated. 

Mr.  Miller.  I  am  aware  of  the  infrastructure  and  force  structure  process  but  if 
you  are  continuing  to  present  this  theory  of  excess  then  you  must  have  something 
in  mind  to  back-up  your  beliefs.  Where  do  you  expect  to  find  this  25  percent? 

General  Myers.  In  the  April  1998  Report  of  the  Department  of  Defense  on  Base 
Realignment  and  Closure,  Department  of  Defense  estimated  that  it  had  approxi- 
mately 23  percent  excess  base  capacity.  In  its  review  of  that  report,  the  GAO  stated: 
".  .  .  our  prior  work  supports  the  report's  general  conclusion  that  DOD  continues 
to  retain  excess  capacity."  However,  any  estimate  of  excess  capacity  is  just  an  esti- 
mate— only  a  thorough  BRAC  analysis  can  indicate  how  much  and  where  unneces- 
sary infrastructure  can  be  prudently  realigned  or  eliminated. 

Mr.  Miller.  What  is  the  status  of  implementing  new  testing  and  evaluation  pol- 
icy legislated  in  the  FY  2003  Defense  Authorization  Act  that  mandates  the  creation 
of  a  director  for  the  newly  established  Test  &  Evaluation  Resource  Enterprise?  And 
if  that  three-star  general  is  expected  to  report  to  Secretary  Aldridge,  how  does  that 
impact  the  efficacy  of  the  director  of  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation,  which  reports 
to  you? 

General  Myers.  The  Secretary  of  Defense  may  have  a  more  detailed  response. 
From  my  prospective  the  Department  is  staffing  a  charter  for  this  organization  and 
intends  to  formally  establish  the  Defense  Test  Resource  Management  Center 
(DTRMC)  in  April.  The  DTRMC  reporting  structure  does  not  appear  to  adversely 


119 

affect  the  efficacy  of  Director,  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation  (DOT&E)  because 
the  DTRMC  will  coordinate  with  DOT&E  all  test  and  evaluation  facility  and  re- 
source matters  that  impact  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation,  Live  Fire  Test  and 
Evaluation,  and  Joint  Test  and  Evaluation.  DOT&E  will  still  maintain  their  inde- 
pendence in  reporting  on  all  Operational  Test  and  Evaluation  matters. 

Mr.  Miller.  What  is  the  perceived  role  for  government  in  developmental  testing? 
And  why  does  the  Department  of  Defense  permit  developmental  testing  to  be  con- 
ducted at  non-governmental  sites  when  government  facilities  are  available? 

General  Myers.  Developmental  testing  verifies  a  system's  performance,  provides 
an  indication  of  technical  maturity,  and  confirms  the  design  meets  specifications. 
The  Department  of  Defense  has  a  wide  range  of  responsibilities  in  this  regard,  in- 
cluding the  planning,  conduct,  and  oversight  of  the  developmental  testing  process. 
Program  Managers  have  a  responsibility  to  develop  a  well-executed,  cost-effective 
test  plan.  They  have  the  flexibility  to  use  either  contractor  or  government  facilities, 
as  appropriate  to  fit  the  particular  requirements  of  individual  programs.  This  mini- 
mizes the  time  it  takes  to  satisfy  test  objectives,  consistent  with  sound  business 
management  practices,  and  applicable  laws  and  regulations. 

Mr.  Miller.  "As  you  know,  last  year  seven  countries  were  invited  to  join  NATO. 
Do  you  believe  these  countries  can  immediately  contribute  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
U.S.  Armed  Forces?" 

General  Myers.  Yes.  The  seven  invitees — Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Romania,  Slovakia,  and  Slovenia — through  their  military  contribution  to  NATO  coa- 
lition operations  in  the  Balkans,  the  war  on  terrorism,  and  operations  in  Iraq,  have 
clearly  demonstrated  their  willingness  and  ability  to  contribute  to  NATO  and  U.S. 
operations  in  multiple  theaters.  All  seven  invitees  are  troop-contributing  nations  to 
operations  in  the  Balkans.  All  seven  are  providing  forces  or  capabilities  in  support 
of  on-going  military  operations  in  Afghanistan.  Finally,  all  invitees  are  supporting, 
politically  and/or  militarily,  the  coalition  operation  in  Iraq. 

Mr.  Miller.  "As  you  know,  last  year  seven  countries  were  invited  to  join  NATO. 
Do  you  believe  these  countries  can  immediately  contribute  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
U.S.  Armed  Forces?" 

General  Myers.  Yes.  The  seven  invitees — Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Romania,  Slovakia,  and  Slovenia — through  their  military  contribution  to  NATO  coa- 
lition operations  in  the  Balkans,  the  war  on  terrorism,  and  operations  in  Iraq,  have 
clearly  demonstrated  their  willingness  and  ability  to  contribute  to  NATO  and  U.S. 
operations  in  multiple  theaters.  All  seven  invitees  are  troop-contributing  nations  to 
operations  in  the  Balkans.  All  seven  are  providing  forces  or  capabilities  in  support 
of  on-going  military  operations  in  Afghanistan.  Finally,  all  invitees  are  supporting, 
politically  and/or  militarily,  the  coalition  operation  in  Iraq. 

Mr.  Miller.  Do  you  see  a  continued  role  for  Special  Operation  Forces  and  more 
specifically,  a  joint  force  concept  whereas  we  will  no  longer  have  Air  Force  Bases 
and  Army  Forts  but  joint  force  complexes? 

Secretary  Rltmsfeld.  Yes,  I  see  a  continuing  role  for  Special  Operations  Forces. 
During  the  upcoming  BRAG  process,  the  Department  will  look  specifically  at  cross- 
service  functionality.  Only  through  a  complete  review  process  will  we  be  able  to  as- 
sess adequately  the  best  course  of  action  to  support  the  expanding  joint  force  con- 
cept. 


FISCAL  YEAR  2004,  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  AUTHORIZA- 
TION ACT— SECRETARY  OF  THE  ARMY;  ARMY  CHIEF 
OF  STAFF 


House  of  Representatives, 
Committee  on  Armed  Services, 
Washington,  DC,  Wednesday,  February  12,  2003. 
The  committee  met,  pursuant  to  call,   at   10:00  a.m.,  in  room 
2118,  Rayburn  House  Office  Building,  Hon.  Duncan  Hunter  (chair- 
man of  the  committee)  presiding. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  HON.  DUNCAN  HUNTER,  A  REP- 
RESENTATIVE FROM  CALIFORNIA,  CHAIRMAN,  COMMITTEE 
ON  ARMED  SERVICES 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  Today  the 
committee  will  consider  the  fiscal  year  2004  budget  request  of  the 
Department  of  the  Army. 

I  am  pleased  to  welcome  back  Secretary  Tom  White  and  General 
Eric  Shinseki,  Army  Chief  of  Staff,  to  discuss  the  various  elements 
of  the  proposed  program  for  the  Army. 

And  before  proceeding  further,  I  would  like  to  take  a  moment  to 
recognize  General  Shinseki's  long  and  distinguished  service  to  the 
Nation  and  to  the  men  and  women  of  the  United  States  Army. 
And,  General,  I  know  we  are  going  to  continue  to  work  closely  over 
the  coming  months,  but  this  is  going  to  mark  your  last  budget  pos- 
ture presentation  before  this  committee,  and  I  think  it  is  only  ap- 
propriate that  we  recognize  your  service  and  thank  you  for  all  you 
have  done  to  further  the  goals  and  future  of  the  United  States 
Army.  Thank  you  very  much. 

General  Shinseki.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  It  is 
kind  and  very  generous  of  you  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  thanks  for  your  service.  You  are  a  model 
General  of  professionalism  and  all  of  the  things  that  literally  tens 
of  thousands  of  young  folks  aspire  to  when  they  put  that  uniform 
on,  and  lots  of  them  are  going  into  operational  status  at  this  point 
in  what  can  be  described  as  a  pretty  dangerous  theater.  Your  lead- 
ership has  been  very  important  in  terms  of  putting  them  in  a  posi- 
tion and  equipping  them  and  preparing  them  for  this  challenge 
that  we  face. 

I  find  it  somewhat  ironic  to  read  the  daily  stream  of  press  re- 
ports that  characterize  the  President's  defense  budget  request  as  a 
huge  and  historic  increase  in  spending,  and  I  raise  this  because 
perhaps  no  other  element  of  the  overall  element  defense  budget 
better  characterizes  the  dilemma  facing  the  military  services  than 
the  Army  budget. 

(121) 


122 

This  budget  request  does  make — it  does  continue  to  make  careful 
investments  in  key  areas  to  enhance  pay  and  benefits,  quahfy  of 
Hfe  for  our  troops  and  training  and  sustainabihty  of  our  forces,  and 
it  also  makes  significant  enhancement  in  important  research  and 
development  programs.  But  as  in  years  past,  these  enhancements 
come  at  a  steep  price  in  terms  of  the  trade-offs. 

The  overall  Army  request  for  fiscal  year  2004  is  93.9  billion,  an 
increase  of  3  billion  above  the  current  year.  However,  those  num- 
bers reflect  a  cut  of  2.3  billion  in  the  Army's  procurement  program, 
which  was  already  on  life  support  from  a  decade  of  neglect.  Part 
of  this  cut  results  in  the  cancellation  of  24  Army  programs  in  order 
to  harvest  1.6  billion  in  fiscal  year  2004  and  around  14  billion  over 
the  5-year  program  for  other  priorities. 

I  am  eager  to  hear  your  case  as  to  why  we  can  abruptly  afford 
to  shelve  these  programs  which  form  the  backbone  of  our  current 
heavy  ground  combat  capability.  I  understand  the  budgetary  argu- 
ment. What  I  need  to  hear,  and  I  think  what  we  all  need  to  hear 
is  a  military  argument  that  supports  a  notion  that  we  can  afford 
to  walk  away  from  modernizing  our  heavy  forces  at  this  juncture 
without  accepting  significant  risk  in  terms  of  loss  of  combat  power. 

There  are  numerous  other  aspects  of  the  proposed  Army  program 
that  deserve  mention,  but  I  think  it  best  to  allow  them  to  be  ex- 
plored more  fully  during  today's  hearing  and  the  dozens  of  sub- 
committee hearings  that  will  follow  examining  this  budget  request 
in  greater  detail. 

And  so  before  our  guests  make  their  presentations,  I  would  like 
to  call  on  my  colleague  and  partner,  the  gentleman  from  Missouri, 
Mr.  Skelton,  for  any  remarks  he  wants  to  make. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Hunter  can  be  found  in  the  Ap- 
pendix on  page  175.] 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  IKE  SKELTON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  MISSOURI,  RANKING  MEMBER,  COMMITTEE  ON 
ARMED  SERVICES 

Mr.  Skelton.  Thank  you  so  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Secretary, 
General  Shinseki,  we  welcome  you. 

I  can  only  echo,  General  Shinseki,  what  Chairman  Hunter  said 
about  you,  that  what  a  tremendous  soldier  you  are  and  you  have 
been.  In  my  estimation.  General,  you  are  a  living  example  of  being 
all  that  you  can  be,  and  we  thank  you  for  that. 

General  Shinseki.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Let  me  say  how  proud  we  are  of  all  of  our  soldiers 
and  what  they  provide  every  day.  They  continue  to  fight  terrorism 
in  Afghanistan,  training  others  to  battle  terrorism  in  such  place  as 
the  Philippines  and  Georgia,  poised  to  disarm  Iraq  if  the  President 
gives  that  order.  And  the  strains  are  enormous  for  our  soldiers, 
their  families,  and  I  hope  you  will  tell  them  how  grateful  we  are. 

Given  these  sacrifices,  I  worry  that  we  are  asking  our  soldiers  to 
do  too  much  with  too  little.  As  you  know,  I  have  been  concerned 
for  years  about  the  adequacy  of  our  Army  end  strength,  and  yet  the 
strains  have  never  been  greater  than  they  are  today. 

I  also  have  a  concern — should  we  get  the  personnel  situation 
right,  my  concern  is  about  the  dip  in  the  Army  procurement  spend- 
ing. Cutting  and  restructuring  programs  makes  sense.  We  all  want 


123 

to  make  the  best  use  of  the  taxpayers'  money,  but  I  know  the  great 
plans  that  you  have  for  the  Army's  Stryker,  with  a  'y/  that  are  in- 
tegral to  the  Army's  objective  force,  but  I  am  concerned  that  we 
may  be  mortgaging  our  present  too  greatly  to  pay  for  great  systems 
in  the  future. 

Mr.  Chairman,  with  that  I  will  ask  that  my  entire  statement  be 
set  forth  in  the  record  in  total,  but  let  me  welcome  Secretary 
White,  General  Shinseki.  We  look  forward  to  their  testimony. 
Thank  you. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Skelton  can  be  found  in  the  Ap- 
pendix on  page  179.] 

Mr.  McHUGH  [presiding].  I  thank  the  gentleman  from  Missouri. 
Without  objection,  not  only  will  your  statement  be  entered  in  the 
record,  but  also  the  entire  statement  of  both  of  our  witnesses.  And, 
Mr.  Secretary,  thank  you  for  being  with  us  this  morning.  The  floor 
is  yours. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  THOMAS  E.  WHITE,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 

ARMY 

Secretary  White.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  Congressman  Skel- 
ton, distinguished  members  of  the  committee.  As  you  suggest,  we 
will  submit  the  Army  posture  statement  for  the  record,  and  I  will 
keep  my  remarks  short. 

General  Shinseki  and  I  are  grateful  for  this  opportunity  to  speak 
to  you  today  about  the  Army.  Our  priorities  remain  the  same:  Win 
the  war,  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism,  and  transform  our  Army. 

First  and  foremost,  I  wish  to  thank  you  for  your  continued  sup- 
port of  the  Army.  The  2003  budget  has  allowed  us  to  make  signifi- 
cant improvements  in  many  key  areas.  We  have  structured  our 
budgeted  priorities  for  2004  to  reflect  the  same  priorities  as  2003: 
People,  readiness  and  transformation. 

As  was  said  by  General  Abrams  when  he  was  Chief,  people  are 
not  in  the  Army,  they  are  the  Army.  In  2004  we  continue  to  build 
on  the  programs  you  supported  in  2003.  We  budgeted  a  targeted 
pay  raise,  significantly  reduced  soldier  out-of-pocket  expenses  for 
housing,  and  accelerated  the  residential  communities  initiative  to 
improve  on-post  quarters  for  soldiers  and  their  families. 

This  year  we  are  examining  options  for  a  unit  manning  initiative 
that  will  enhance  the  cohesion  and  combat  readiness  of  our  forma- 
tions, while  improving  the  predictability  of  assignment  patterns  for 
Army  families.  As  you  know,  we  have  over  30,000  National  Guard 
and  Reserve  soldiers  on  active  duty  consistently  since  9/11/2001, 
some  18  months  ago,  almost  18  months  ago.  And,  of  course  today, 
we  have  114,000  activated  as  we  proceed,  and  that  represents  a 
significant  deployment,  probably  without  question  the  largest  since 
Desert  Storm.  These  Reserve  component  soldiers  are  performing 
magnificently,  and  we  appreciate  the  tremendous  support  they 
have  received  from  their  employers  as  well  as  the  American  public. 

We  recognize  the  unique  sacrifices  made  by  these  citizen  soldiers 
as  they  step  up  to  do  their  duty  as  citizens  and  patriots. 

In  readiness,  the  Army  is  ready  for  any  additional  operations  we 
are  ordered  to  perform  in  the  future,  and  our  outstanding  soldiers 
are    successfully   meeting   many   current    obligations    around   the 


124 

world,  and  many  of  you  have  traveled  and  seen  them  in  their  for- 
ward deployments. 

In  the  2004  budget,  we  fully  fund  OPTEMPO  requirements  for 
the  force,  and  for  the  second  year  in  a  row  significantly  increase 
our  spares  account,  while  accelerating  the  fielding  of  soldier  sup- 
port items  and  unit  communications  equipment  to  make  sure  our 
units  are  as  ready  as  possible. 

However,  as  the  Secretary  of  Defense  discussed  with  you,  costs 
associated  with  ongoing  operations  in  the  war  on  terrorism  and 
preparations  for  future  operations  were  not  budgeted  for  either  in 
the  current  year  or  in  2004.  Those  additional  funding  requirements 
will  have  to  be  dealt  with  in  supplemental  funding  requests. 

In  transformation,  we  are  transforming  our  Army  even  as  we 
execute  combat  operations  and  prepare  for  future  contingencies, 
which  we  think  is  an  absolute  imperative. 

There  will  not  be  an  operational  pause  that  we  can  take  advan- 
tage of  to  transform  the  Army  and  we  can't  wait.  The  2004  budget 
request  includes  funding  for  our  fourth  Stryker  combat  brigade 
team,  which  will  be  the  Second  Armored  Calvary  Regiment. 

We  have  restructured  the  Commanche  helicopter  program  focus 
on  the  armed  scout  mission  and  posture  to  successfully  meet  acqui- 
sition Milestone  B  in  May  of  this  year  for  the  Future  Combat  Sys- 
tem (FCS). 

The  Army  2004-2009  program  makes  a  clear  and  unambiguous 
statement  about  Army  priorities  in  risk  management.  We  are  com- 
mitted to  transforming  the  Army  and  have  allocated  funds  to  com- 
plete the  fielding  of  our  six  Stryker  brigades,  the  Commanche,  the 
Future  Combat  System,  and  all  other  transformation-related  pro- 
grams. 

The  Future  Combat  System,  not  line-of-sight  variants,  is  sched- 
uled for  fielding  in  the  initial  increment  of  platforms  for  FCS,  satis- 
fying the  cannon  requirement  previously  addressed  by  Crusader. 
Now,  obviously  balancing  near,  mid  and  far-term  risks  while  focus- 
ing on  transforming  the  Army  requires  us  to  make  some  tough 
choices,  as  the  chairman  talked  about  in  his  remarks. 

We  have  had  to  terminate  or  restructure  a  number  of  legacy 
force  modernization  programs  to  fully  fund  transformation.  Fur- 
ther, we  have  had  to  make  the  hard  decisions  to  put  additional  re- 
sources into  our  spares  line  at  the  expense  of  base  operations. 

We  made  those  decisions  consistent  with  our  top  priorities  of 
supporting  people,  readiness  and  transformation,  while  taking  pru- 
dent risk  in  our  legacy  force  and  infrastructure  accounts,  but  it  is 
not  easy. 

In  conclusion,  I  wish  to  speak  to  our  soldiers.  Their  performance 
in  Afghanistan  and  other  places  speaks  volumes.  In  the  dead  of 
winter  in  Afghanistan,  in  a  land-locked  country,  in  the  toughest 
terrain  imaginable,  they  collapsed  the  Taliban  regime,  put  al- 
Qaeda  on  the  run.  It  has  been  my  privilege  to  visit  them  in  Afghan- 
istan, and  Kuwait  and  Bosnia,  Kosovo,  numerous  posts  around  the 
world.  You  will  not  meet  a  finer  group  of  young  Americans. 

They  possess  the  physical  toughness  to  fight  at  10,000  feet  in 
freezing  temperatures,  the  tactical  savvy  to  defeat  committed  oppo- 
nents, and  the  mental  agility  to  transition  from  warfighting  to 
training  the  new  Afghan  Army. 


125 

I  am  occasionally  asked  about  the  toughness  of  our  younger  gen- 
eration of  soldiers.  I  tell  you  and  everyone  else  who  asks,  don't  be 
concerned.  Our  youngsters  today  carry  on  the  legacy  carved  out  by 
their  predecessors  at  Normandy,  the  frozen  hills  of  the  38th  Par- 
allel in  Korean,  the  jungles  of  the  Ashau  Valley. 

In  my  40-year  affiliation  with  the  Army,  they  are  flat  out  the 
best  soldiers  I  have  ever  seen,  and  the  Chief  and  I  and  everyone 
else  are  extremely  proud  of  them. 

Thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  discuss  the  posture  of  the 
Army,  and  I  look  forward  to  your  questions. 

[The  joint  prepared  statement  of  Secretary  White  and  General 
Shinseki  can  be  found  in  the  Appendix  on  page  183.] 

Mr.  McHuGH.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 

General. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEN.  ERIC  K.  SHINSEKI,  CHIEF  OF  STAFF  OF 

THE  ARMY 

General  Shinseki.  Mr.  Chairman,  Congressman  Skeleton,  first 
thank  you  again  for  the  very  kind  and  generous  remarks.  In  com- 
plimenting this  soldier,  you  have  complimented  soldiers  in  the 
Army.  Thank  you  for  your  generosity. 

I  am  honored  to  join  Secretary  White  in  representing  the  Army 
before  the  members  of  this  committee.  Today  soldiers  are  defending 
our  freedom  in  the  war  on  terrorism,  but  they  do  that  alongside 
sailors,  airmen,  Marines,  Coast  Guardsmen,  active  and  reserve 
components  alike. 

All  are  serving  magnificently,  and  so  the  Secretary  and  I  wel- 
come this  opportunity  to  report  to  you  once  again  on  the  readiness 
of  our  soldiers,  the  best  led,  the  best  trained,  and  the  best  equipped 
Army  in  the  world.  And  as  he  has  identified,  and  as  many  of  you 
have  traveled  over  the  last  six  months,  I  have  also  visited  soldiers 
in  a  number  of  locations,  to  include  Walter  Reed  Medical  Center, 
and  I  will  tell  you  that  I  am  immensely  proud  of  what  I  have  seen 
everjrwhere  I  go. 

More  than  198,000  soldiers  are  forward  stationed  as  we  speak. 
More  than  114,000  Reserve  Component  (RC)  soldiers  have  been 
mobilized.  Tough,  focused,  determined.  They  are  ready  to  fight  and 
win  our  Nation's  wars  decisively,  this  war  on  terrorism  and  any 
others  we  might  be  sent  to  fight. 

Three  and  a  half  years  ago  we  knew  there  was  a  war  in  our  fu- 
ture. We  just  didn't  know  where,  when  or  against  whom.  The  rel- 
ative predictability  of  the  Cold  War  we  had  all  gotten  to  know,  and 
around  which  we  had  designed  our  forces,  had  given  way  to  less 
predictability,  and  some  would  say  unpredictability,  and  that  un- 
predictability was  complicated  by  things  that  we  didn't  quite  un- 
derstand. This  growing  complication  of  organized  crime,  terrorism, 
narcotrafficking  and  the  proliferation  of  weapons  of  mass  destruc- 
tion, we  were  all  concerned  about  and  had  difficulty  seeing. 

The  collision  of  these  factors  gave  raise  to  asymmetric  threats  we 
were  all  concerned  about,  and  we  felt — we  in  the  Army  felt  we  re- 
quired more  responsive,  more  deployable,  more  agile,  more  versa- 
tile, more  lethal  and  survivable,  and  certainly  more  sustainable  for- 
mations than  we  have  in  the  force  today,  the  force  around  which 
we  designed  for  the  Cold  War. 


126 

Voices  inside  and  outside  of  the  Army  called  for  change.  While 
changing  direction  in  a  large  and  complex  organization  like  the 
United  States  Army  is  not  easily  done,  especially  when  we  were 
eminently  successful  in  our  last  major  outing,  that  being  Desert 
Storm,  comprehensive  and  fundamental  change  demands  a  shared 
vision,  demands  determination,  demands  incredibly  hard  work,  and 
a  deep  and  abiding  commitment  to  excellence. 

And  it  takes  time,  it  takes  patience,  and  it  takes  the  unwavering 
support  of  the  administration  and  the  Congress  to  deliver  on  the 
Army's  strategic  vision.  The  Army  has  enjoyed  significant  support. 
For  that  reason  we  are  transforming  rapidly  today  to  be  better  pos- 
tured for  the  crises  in  the  future,  even  as  our  soldiers  are  fighting 
today  this  war  on  terrorism,  and  even  as  they  stand  by  for  orders, 
other  orders  in  a  hundred  camps  and  stations,  as  I  say,  even  as  we 
speak. 

Our  soldiers  bear  the  risks  we  can  only  hope  to  estimate  in  our 
planning  scenarios.  Mitigating  those  risks  while  fulfilling  our  na- 
tional security  responsibilities  is  what  Army  transformation  is  all 
about.  To  mitigate  risk  we  structured  transformation  to  occur  along 
three  mutually  supporting  axes  for  change. 

On  one  we  preserve  the  readiness  of  today's  legacy  force.  On  an- 
other we  bridge  the  operational  gap  discovered  about  ten  years  ago, 
the  operational  gap  between  today's  heavy  and  light  forces,  with  six 
Stryker  brigade  combat  teams.  On  the  third  we  developed  future 
concepts  and  technologies  that  will  provide  a  capabilities  over- 
match in  the  objective  force  that  we  intend  to  field  before  the  end 
of  this  decade. 

Now,  to  balance  all  of  these  requirements  we  continue,  as  the 
chairman,  you  have  alluded,  we  continue  to  make  difficult  decisions 
about  how  to  prudently  spread  our  fundings  over  those  decisions. 
The  Army's  fiscal  year  2004  budget  strikes  the  right  balance,  pre- 
serving readiness  in  today's  formations  while  investing  in  capabili- 
ties that  contend  with  the  mid-  and  long-term  threats.  However, 
costs  associated  with  the  war  on  terrorism,  as  the  Secretary  has 
pointed  out,  is  not  reflected  in  our  budget  request,  and  currently 
we  are  covering  those  costs  roughly  at  about  $650  million  each 
month  with  fiscal  year  2003  third  and  fourth  quarter  resources 
that  we  have  cycled  forward. 

The  continued  support  of  this  Congress  remains  essential  to  our 
readiness.  We  have  said  for  some  time  now  that  soldiers  are  the 
centerpiece  of  our  formations,  that  people  are  the  engine  behind  all 
of  our  magnificent  moments  as  an  Army.  That  is  certainly  our  his- 
tory. 

Their  well-being  is  the  human  dimension  of  this  thing  we  call 
Army  transformation.  Thanks  to  your  help  with  housing,  barracks 
improvements,  pay  raises,  health  care,  long  overdue  and  myriad 
other  well-being  programs,  we  are  doing  better  than  ever  at  taking 
care  of  our  people,  making  this  transforming  Army  the  right  place 
to  raise  families.  Our  people,  soldiers,  civilians,  retirees,  veterans, 
and  all  of  their  families  appreciate  their  support  more  than  I  can 
say. 

In  this  Army  warfighting  readiness  doesn't  wear  wheels  or  tracks 
or  come  in  on  skids;  it  wears  boots,  and  we  have  pushed  hard  to 
generate  those  enabling  technologies  that  give  soldiers  the  edge 


127 

and  capabilities  today.  Land  warriors'  superior  body  armor  is  pro- 
tecting our  soldiers  in  Afghanistan  today.  We  are  using  robots  in 
caves  and  putting  antitank  warheads  on  unmanned  aerial  vehicles 
today.  Our  technology  investments  are  giving  us  unprecedented 
Blue  Force  Tracking  capabilities  today. 

Last  July,  during  the  largest  joint  exercise  in  our  history,  an  ex- 
ercise called  Millennium  Challenge  2002,  we  air  delivered  a 
Stryker  platoon  onto  a  dirt  strip  at  the  National  Training  Center 
at  Ft.  Irwin,  California.  They  exploited  momentum  achieved  by  a 
battalion  by  the  82nd  Airborne  Division  in  their  airborne  insertion 
and  airfield  seizure  operation. 

This  was  eight  weeks  after  Strykers  began  arriving  at  Ft.  Lewis, 
just  three  years  after  the  Army  had  described  a  requirement  for  an 
interim  force.  The  Army  had  an  operational  unit  in  the  California 
desert.  Already  the  Stryker  brigade  combat  teams  have  begun  to 
demonstrate  the  increased  strategic  operational  and  tactical  versa- 
tility they  will  provide  to  combatant  commanders,  and  by  this  sum- 
mer the  first  Stryker  brigade  combat  team  should  be  prepared  to 
join  us  in  this  war  on  terrorism. 

So  it  is  not  just  about  capabilities,  we  intend  to  begin  fielding  in 
2008.  It  is  also  about  capabilities  we  are  giving  to  soldiers  and  to 
combatant  commanders  today. 

We  are  grateful  for  the  unwavering  and  bipartisan  support  and 
leadership  of  this  committee,  support  that  you  have  provided  over 
three  and  a  half  years  that  I  have  served  as  Chief,  and  most  espe- 
cially we  are  indebted  to  you  for  your  unyielding  devotion  to  our 
soldiers.  They  are  on  point  for  the  Nation  as  soldiers  have  been  for 
227  years,  defending  our  freedom  and  the  privileges  we  all  enjoy. 
It  is  their  sacred  duty,  and  ours  is  to  give  them  the  training,  the 
equipment,  the  leadership  and  the  support  that  will  enable  them 
to  perpetuate,  to  extend,  that  legacy. 

Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  for,  and  the  members  of  this  commit- 
tee, for  helping  us  to  fulfill  that  responsibility,  and  I  look  forward 
to  your  questions. 

[The  joint  prepared  statement  of  General  Shinseki  and  Secretary 
White  can  be  found  in  the  Appendix  on  page  183.] 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  General.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 
One  housekeeping  announcement  here  that  is — I  think  is  a  great 
idea  that  was  brought  up  by  Mr.  Abercrombie  in  our  last  hearing, 
that  is  that  we  have  a  book  with  pages  in  it  for  Members  to  write 
a  brief  note,  and  send  a  message  to  our  former  chairman,  Bob 
Stump.  If  the  staff  can  get  that,  it  is  down  in  his  place  right  now, 
and  maybe  we  can  circulate  that  while  we  have  a  number  of  Mem- 
bers here  today. 

Mr.  Secretary  and  General,  I  am  going  to  go  on  down  the  line 
and  not  ask  a  question,  but  I  would  ask  that  you  give  one  fact  set 
to  the  committee.  And  that  is  we  would  like  you  to  get  to  our  Staff 
Director  a  base  fact  set  with  respect  to  facilities,  and  don't  reinvent 
the  wheel  but  retrieve  what  you  have  on  record,  the  fact  set  with 
respect  to  facilities,  capital  investment,  training  apparatus,  and 
personnel  and  family  member  support  structure  of  our  Army  foot- 
print in  Germany. 

Secretary  White.  In  Germany. 


128 

Mr.  McHUGH.  The  71,400  or  so  uniformed  personnel  who  are 
presently  stationed  in  Germany.  We  would  like  to  have  that  infor- 
mation if  we  can  get  that. 

Mr.  Skelton. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  have  a  whole  list  of  questions  I  had  planned  to  ask  involving 
end  strength,  active-reserve  mix  in  the  force  structure,  the  strain 
on  Reservists,  the  cost  of  wartime  operations,  maintaining  readi- 
ness, the  Future  Combat  System,  the  funding  for  the  Stryker  bri- 
gade, science  and  technologies  shortfalls,  programmatic  shortfalls. 
Army  Guard  at  Air  Force  installations  as  at  the  Whiteman  Air 
Force  Base  in  my  home  area,  and  force  structure  and  reliance  on 
technology. 

But  I  am  going  to  bypass  those  questions  and  ask.  General,  the 
bottom  line  question.  The  bottom  line  question:  Is  the  Office  of  the 
Secretary  of  Defense  (OSD)  asking  for  the  resources  the  Army 
needs  to  be  all  it  can  be? 

General  Shinseki.  I  think  you  started  with  end  strength,  Mr. 
Skelton.  Let  me  just  say  that  for  the  last  three  and  a  half  years, 
I  have  testified  that  the  Army,  I  thought,  was  smaller  than  the 
mission  profiles  we  were  given,  and  that  we  had  undertaken  a 
study  to  try  to  understand  what  right-sizing  the  Army  is  about.  I 
think  we  see  in  the  current  call-up  of  Reserve  component  forma- 
tions both  the  value  of  having  National  Guard,  and  Army  Reserve 
units  in  the  inventory  to  the  degree  that  we  have  them. 

Prior  to  this  latest  mobilization,  for  a  potential  large  operation 
that  we  are  all  standing  by  for,  we  had  a  level  at  which  mobiliza- 
tion was  occurring — it  is  what  the  Secretary  alluded  to — anywheres 
from  20  to  30,000  Reserve  component  soldiers  being  called  up  for 
what  we  would  have  considered  long,  ongoing  routine  contingency 
operations,  the  Bosnias,  the  Kosovos,  the  Sinais. 

In  answering  the  question  about  end  strength,  I  think  there  is 
a  start  point  here  where  we  say  that  we  have  to  look  at  those  num- 
bers and  understand  that  that  is  a  strain  on  the  force  today,  and 
our  discussions  about  right-sizing  the  Army,  both  in  end  strength 
for  the  active  component  and  the  distribution  of  the  mix  between 
active  and  reserve  components,  I  think  that  is  a  fairly  major  data 
point  that  we  will  have  to  address. 

And  part  of  our  request  to  us,  which  we  willingly  supported,  was 
to  provide  Army  National  Guard  soldiers  to  the  tune  of  about  9,600 
when  it  is  all  said  and  done,  who  will  be  providing  security  capa- 
bilities at  Air  Force  bases.  And  we  thought  it  was  an  important 
thing  to  do,  and  our  soldiers  are  going  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Sl^LTON.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman  [presiding].  Mr.  Hefley. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would  add  my  voice. 
General,  to  the  disappointment  that  that  this  will  be  your  last  time 
here  in  this  particular  capacity.  We  are  going  to  miss  you,  and  you 
have  done  a  good  job  for  America. 

I  just  a  week  ago  took,  and  I  told  you  personally  this  story,  I  took 
a  group  of  NATO  parliamentarians  out  to  Ft.  Irwin,  and  I  think  ev- 
erything that  both  the  Secretary  and  you  have  said  about  Ameri- 
ca's Army  being  the  best  is  really  true. 


129 

I  wish  Saddam  Hussein  could  have  been  with  me  and  this  group 
on  that  trip.  I  would  never  want  to  go  up  against  the  United  States 
Army.  But  there  are  some  things  that  disturb  me  in  this  budget. 
And  let  me  just  hit  on  two  or  three. 

One,  the  process,  and  I  would  like  for  one  or  both  of  you  to  speak 
to  the  process.  This  is,  as  best  I  can  tell,  a  peacetime  budget.  Now, 
I  can  understand  us  not  putting  money  in  for  a  war  against  Iraq, 
because  we  don't  know  if  we  are  going  to  have  a  war  against  Iraq. 
We  hope  that  we  don't.  But  I  don't  understand  us  not  having 
money  in  here  for  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism.  But  it  clearly 
states,  particularly  in  the  personnel  section,  that  this  is  not  in- 
cluded. We  have  been  fighting  that  war  on  terrorism  for  at  least 
the  last  year  and  a  half,  and  it  looks  to  me  like  if  we  are  to  get 
a  clear  picture  of  what  we  are  going  to  need  we  need  to  have  that 
in  the  budget. 

It  is  my  understanding  we  are  going  to  have  a  gigantic  supple- 
mental coming  up  real  soon.  Well,  if  that  is  true,  the  work  has  been 
done  to  project  on  that  supplemental.  Why  couldn't  much  of  that 
have  been  in  the  budget? 

And  then  second,  the  flying  hours  for  your  guys.  You  are  accept- 
ing the  fact  that  you  need  over  14  flying  hours,  you  are  going  to 
do  only  13.  I  would  like  some  comment  on  what  this  does  to  your 
readiness  if  we  don't  give  them  the  training  that  you  think  that 
they  should  have. 

And  then  finally,  and  I  will  stop  and  let  you  respond,  the  ammu- 
nition, the  procurement  of  ammunition.  There  is  still,  it  appears, 
that  for  fiscal  year  2004  there  will  be  shortfalls,  including  1.1  bil- 
lion for  war  reserve  ammunition,  and  130  million  for  training  am- 
munition. 

Now,  this  is  something  our  chairman  has  hit  on  hard  over  and 
over  again,  and  it  is  a  concern  that  I  have.  What  does  this  do  to 
your  readiness  as  well?  And  I  will  stop  at  that  point. 

Secretary  White.  Why  don't  I  do  the  first  one  on  the  budgeting, 
the  supplemental,  and  the  Chief  will  do  flying  hours  and  ammo,  if 
that  is  okay. 

As  you  will  recall,  I  think  this  was  extensively  discussed  when 
Secretary  Rumsfeld  was  here.  The  2003  budget  process  included,  at 
the  Department  of  Defense  (DOD)  level,  $10  billion  for  the  war  on 
terrorism.  And  that  was  authorized  but  not  appropriated,  as  I  re- 
call. And  so  we  didn't  get  it.  And  so  going  into  the  2004  budgeting 
process,  the  assumption  was  that  we  would  budget  to  480,000  ac- 
tive end  strength,  and  no  extraordinary  RC  mobilization,  and  that 
is  the  way  the  budget  was  built.  And,  consequently,  going  into  the 
year  averaging  about  30,000  Reserve  Component  mobilized  pretty 
much  steady  state  since  9/11,  and  now  of  course  being  significantly 
higher  than  that  as  we  both  discussed,  causes  us  to  be  cash-flowing 
money  from  the  back-end  of  the  year  to  the  front-end  of  the  year 
to  pay,  principally,  military  personnel  and  operations  and  mainte- 
nance (O&M)  bills  to  support  what  is  going  on,  and  that  has  caused 
the  need  for  the  supplemental.  But  that  is  the  story  behind  it. 

Chief. 

General  Shinseki.  Regarding  ammo,  I  will  just  go  back  and  re- 
view what  has  happened  over  the  last  year.  In  September  of  2001, 
when  the  President  outlined  this  war  on  global  terrorism  and  the 


130 

potential  for  larger  operations,  we  in  the  Army  started  cycling  up 
our  training.  We  had  a  training  strategy  that  talked  to  the  number 
of  times  we  were  going  to  shoot  our  weapons  systems,  and  we  cy- 
cled that  forward  earlier  and  we  increased  our  ammo  consumption. 

So  in  some  ways  we  created  this  $130  million  shortfall  because 
we  increased  the  training  that  we  thought  was  important,  com- 
pared to  what  we  had  put  in  there  a  few  years  ago. 

But  standing  here  where  we  stand  today,  I  think  that  was  the 
right  thing  to  do.  Formations  that  are  standing  by  are  very  well 
trained.  They  are  confident  in  their  weapons  systems.  Because  we 
cycled  up  their  movement  of  those  weapons  systems,  we  have  also 
incurred  a  burn  rate  on  parts  that  had  not  been  set  aside.  We  have 
taken  care  of  that. 

In  the  specific  question  that  you  addressed  on  flying  hours,  this 
has  been  one  of  those  areas  in  which  we  have  had  to  go  back  in 
and  fix  some  issues  that  were  not  visible  when  we  put  the  budget 
together.  We  set  aside — we  thought  what  we  wanted  to  do  was 
about  14  Vi  flying  hours  per  month  per  crew. 

Now,  that  is  a  change.  We  used  to  have  a  14  V2  flying  hour  per 
airframe,  and  we  felt  that  that  wasn't  getting  to  all  of  the  training 
issues.  So  we  increased  that  to  14  V2  hours  per  month,  per  crew. 

And  as  we  increased  those  training  requirements  we  began  to 
find  challenges  in  the  maintenance  program  of  our  aircraft  and, 
frankly,  at  about — our  execution  was,  as  you  indicate,  about  13 
hours.  We  still  want  to  get  back  up  there  to  the  14  V2  hour  training 
program,  and  that  has  caused  some  shortfalls  in  all  of  the  things 
that  we  want  to  do. 

But  I  can  tell  you  that  in  the  last  six  months  a  tremendous  focus 
has  been  put  both  on  aircraft  maintenance  and  training  programs 
that  get  our  youngsters  ready  for  whatever  the  decisions  are. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  McHUGH  [presiding].  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Reyes. 

Mr.  Reyes.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  And  Secretary  White  and 
General  Shinseki,  thank  you  very  much  for  being  here  this  morn- 
ing, and  in  particular,  thank  you  for  the  tremendous  job  you  have 
done  in  the  last  couple  of  years  under  very  tough  situations. 

General  Shinseki,  as  an  Army  veteran,  thank  you  and  God  bless 
you  for  being  a  soldier's  General.  We  appreciate  your  leadership 
and  we  are  going  to  miss  you. 

General  Shinseki.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Reyes.  My  questions  deal  with  two  issues,  although  there 
are  many,  like  Congressman  Skeleton  mentioned.  But  I  would  like 
to  focus  on  two,  the  continuing  obsession  with  privatization  of  jobs, 
and  then  also  end  strength.  As  you  both  know,  last  week  we  had 
Secretary  Rumsfeld  and  General  Myers  here.  They  talked  exten- 
sively about  the  fact  that  we  have  got  troops  assigned  worldwide, 
at  last  count  in  over  120  different  countries. 

We  have  got  them  monitoring  and  operating  in  no-fly  zones,  en- 
forcing United  Nations  (UN)  sanctions  in  the  Gulf,  facilitating  re- 
construction of  Afghanistan,  conducting  peacekeeping  operations  in 
the  Balkans,  working  in  South  America  against  narcotics  traffick- 
ers and  terror  cells,  preserving  stability  in  the  Peninsula  of  Korea, 
and  then,  of  course,  defending  the  homeland. 


131 

And,  through  all  of  this,  I  as  a  Member  of  Congress  find  it  in- 
credible that  we  are  still  talking  about  decreasing  the  end  strength 
of  our  military,  and  specifically  the  United  States  Army.  So  my 
question  to  both  of  you  is  how  can  we  continue  to  even  contemplate 
downsizing  our  forces  when  we  have  got  such  an  extensive  commit- 
ment worldwide,  and  some  would  take  issue  of  whether  or  not  we 
have  anyone  on  the  run,  including  al-Qaeda,  but  if  you  will  address 
the  issue  of  our  end  strength  in  light  of  this  great  challenge. 

The  other  question  deals  with  privatization  of  jobs.  And  as  you 
know,  Mr.  Secretary,  on  many  different  conversations  that  you  and 
I  have  had,  and  also.  General,  I  continue  to  be  concerned  about 
both  the  loss  of  institutional  knowledge  and  the  way  our  civilian 
work  force  is  being  treated  and  their  years  of  service  disregarded 
by  this  effort,  and  also  I  am  concerned  about  the  manner  in  which 
we  don't  seem  to  have  a  system  that  accurately  reflects  the  way 
that  we  evaluate  the  cost  savings  between  in-house  and  contract- 
ing-out  services. 

Those  are  two  very  important  issues  that  I  would  like  both  of  you 
1^0  riddrGss 

Secretary  WHITE.  Thank  you,  sir.  On  the  end  strength,  I  don't 
know  of  any  initiative  going  on  any  place  that  would  suggest  that 
we  need  a  smaller  Army.  It  is  not  being  done  inside  the  Army.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is,  as  I  said,  we  are  at  480,000  active  right  now. 
We  are  a  little  bit  over  strength,  because  we  have  stop-lossed  about 
3,000  people,  wouldn't  let  them  leave,and  our  retention  numbers 
and  our  recruiting  numbers  are  very  good.  So  we  are  about  489,000 
on  the  active  side  right  now.  The  question  of  how  you  redeploy  the 
Army  in  Korea  or  in  Europe  post  whatever  the  Commander  in 
Chief  decides  to  do,  and  Central  Command  area  is  another  ques- 
tion, but  I  think  that  will  lead  to  repositioning,  but  not  downsizing 
of  the  Army. 

With  what  we  have  got,  I  have  never  seen  the  Army  busier  m 
40  years  than  it  is  right  now.  So  I  don't  see  any  initiatives  to  make 
it  smaller. 

On  privatization,  I  am  all  for  privatizing  where  it  makes  sense. 
That  means  we  get  a  value  proposition  for  an  activity  that  can  be 
done  by  the  private  sector  in  a  more  economic  way  when  you  con- 
sider all  of  the  factors  associated  with  it,  and  it  makes  sense  to  do 
it. 

We  have  several  examples  of  being  very  successful  in  this  area. 
The  residential  communities  initiative  on  the  housing  side,  which 
is  privatization  of  housing.  We  are  about  a  third  of  the  way 
through  utilities  privatization.  But  in  both  of  those  cases  it  was 
more  than  just  labor  on  labor  that  we  considered  and  that  we 
outsourced.  It  included  capital,  it  included  a  great  deal  of  expertise 
in  areas  that  were  not  core  to  the  Department. 

In  the  A-76  business,  labor  on  labor,  of  all  of  the  ones  that  I  will 
have  looked  at  over  the  last  couple  of  years,  there  must  have  been 
50  or  60,  the  in-house  teams  win  about  three-quarters  of  the  time 
I  would  bet  across  the  whole  Army. 

But  the  best  privatizations  that  we  do  are  ones  that  are  broader 
than  just  labor  on  labor,  and  we  have  to  be  careful  and  make  sure 
it  makes  sense,  and  that  the  rights  of  our  civilian  work  force  are 


132 

protected  and  considered  along  with  getting  best  value  for  the 
Army. 

General  Shinseki.  I  would  just  add,  Congressman,  that  just  to 
go  back  three  and  a  half  years  ago,  three  and  a  half  years  ago  I 
described  what  I  thought  was  a  very  busy  Army  then  with  a  large 
mission  profile.  But  three  and  a  half  years  ago  we  weren't  recruit- 
ing very  well.  So  any  discussion  about  increasing  end  strength  was 
moot.  We  have  gone  to  work.  I  mean,  the  last  three  years  we  have 
made  our  recruiting  and  our  retention  numbers  in  good  fashion. 

We  will  make  them  this  year.  Although  I  won't  be  here  in  2004, 
I  will  predict  that  we  will  make  them  in  2004.  It  is  just  that  we 
have  put  together  that  good  a  program. 

The  opportunity  to  make  convincing  arguments  about  increasing 
the  Army's  end  strength  I  have  not  been  successful  in  making 
those  points,  but  we  continue  to  have  dialogue.  And  in  that  process 
one  of  the  questions  that  this  Secretary  has  asked,  and  I  think  it 
is  a  valid  one,  I  am  trying  to  help  him  answer  that,  that  is  if  you 
can't  get  an  immediate  adjustment  in  our  end  strength,  do  we  have 
our  people  in  all  of  the  right  places?  That  is  part  of  the  question. 
What  are  the  core  military  and  what  are  noncore? 

And  I  think  in  answering  that  question  there  is  some  internal 
looks  that  we  need  to  do  as  we  strengthen  the  arguments  about 
having  this  dialogue  on  end  strength  increases,  potential  end 
strength  increases  for  the  Army,  I  think  it  will  strengthen  that  ar- 
gument. So  I  think  it  is  a  worthy  question  to  answer.  My  job  is  to 
provide  this  Secretary  with  my  best  military  judgment  on  this,  and 
I  will,  and  there  is  great  open  dialogue,  and  the  study  will  occur, 
and  he  and  I  will  settle  on  these  answers. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  gentleman  okay?  Did  you  have  any  follow- 
up  there? 

Mr.  Reyes.  No.  My  time  is  up.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Saxton. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Secretary  and  Gen- 
eral, thank  you  for  being  here.  We  appreciate  the  sincerity  and  the 
great  effort  that  you  have  both  put  into  your  job. 

I  have  a  two-part  question.  One  has  to  do  with  the  status  of  the 
Reserves  and  the  other  has  to  do  with  the — I  don't  know  whether 
it  is  proposed  change  in  the  command  structure  as  it  relates  to  the 
Special  Operations  forces.  Let  me  just,  I  guess,  phrase  it  this  way. 

In  1990,  Secretary  of  Defense  Cheney  came  here  and  said  that 
the  threat  was  going  to  change,  and  change  it  has.  And  he  also 
suggested  at  that  time  that  the  military,  our  military  forces  would 
have  to  change  to  meet  the  new  threat. 

Recently,  I  have  heard  discussion,  particularly  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  Defense,  about  changes  that  we  need  to  make  in  the 
structure  of  the  Reserve  forces  in  order  to  bring  them  more  into 
line  perhaps  with  today's  need,  and  I  am  interested  to  know  what 
your  view  of  that  subject  is,  particularly  regarding  the  Army  Re- 
serve and  the  Army  National  Guard. 

The  second,  the  Secretary  of  Defense  has  also  suggested  that  the 
command  structure  between  the  area  commanders  and  the  Special 
Operations  commanders  perhaps  could  more  efficiently  be  used,  if 
it  were  changed  to  give  the  Special  Operations  forces  more  direct 


133 

command  over  carrying  out  activities  of  various  kinds.  Would  each 
of  you  comment  on  those  two  subjects,  please? 

Secretary  WHITE.  On  the  first  subject  of  Guard  and  Reserve  and 
the  appropriate  mix,  of  course,  as  the  Secretary  of  Defense  dis- 
cussed while  he  was  here,  there  is  an  ongoing  study  of  that  issue 
to  basically  ask  the  question,  if  we  find  ourselves  constantly  mobi- 
lizing certain  types  of  units  that  are  currently  in  the  Reserve  Com- 
ponent structure,  is  that  a  viable  long-term  strategy,  or  should 
some  portion  of  that  be  brought  into  the  Active  Component? 

Of  course,  if  you  do  that  and  it  is  a  zero  sum  gain  on  end 
strength,  that  means  you  are  going  to  have  to  move  some  structure 
out  of  the  Active  Component  back  to  the  RC,  and  we  have  not  fin- 
ished the  discussion  on  that. 

On  the  Guard,  there  is  a  two-fold  restructuring  of  the  Guard.  In 
addition,  the  aviation  modernization,  the  impact  that  has  on  Guard 
aviation,  the  first  step  was  to  take  two  of  the  eight  Guard  divisions 
and  convert  them  into  combat  service  support.  That  is  ongoing. 

The  second  is  to  take  four  of  the  remaining  six  divisions  and 
make  them  more  multi-purpose,  lighten  them  up  some,  so  that  they 
would  not  only  have  the  whole  current  spectrum  of  missions  that 
they  do  under  Title  federalized,  deploying  to  support  the  Com- 
mander in  Chiefs'  (CINC)  war  plans  as  they  have  done,  the  combat- 
ant commander's  war  plans,  but  also  that  they  would  be  more  use- 
ful in  the  homeland  security  front,  not  only  from  their  governors' 
perspective,  but  also  from  a  Federal  perspective  as  well. 

So  there  is  a  great  deal  of  restructuring  going  on  in  the  Guard 
that  reflects  the  new  threat  environment.  The  question  on  the  Fed- 
eral Reserve  is  going  to  be,  how  much  can  you  afford  to  put  in  the 
Active  Component  and  what  are  you  going  to  take  out  of  the  Active 
Component  to  compensate,  to  compensate  for  it. 

Under  the  Special  Ops  Command 

Mr.  Skelton.  May  I  interrupt,  Mr.  Chairman?  Are  those  plans 
completed  yet? 
Secretary  White.  On  the  Guard  side? 
Mr.  Skelton.  Yes. 

Secretary  White.  The  two  parts  I  talked  about,  yes.  And  we  have 
briefed  the  Guard.  The  Guard  is  fully  supportive  of  it,  and  we  are 
beginning  the  execution  of  it.   So  we  will  come  and  talk  to  you 
about  it,  if  you  want  to  see  the  details. 
Mr.  Skelton.  Thank  you. 

Secretary  White.  Okay.  On  the  Special  Operations  Command 
(SOCOM)  business,  I  think  as  both  Mr.  McHugh  and  the  Secretary 
of  Defense  briefed,  the  Unified  Command  Plan  changed  made 
SOCOM  a  supported  command  with  responsibilities  for  certain  as- 
pects of  the  war  on  terrorism  on  a  global  basis,  and  the  other  com- 
batant commanders  support  it.  I  think  that  is  a  very  wise  change, 
and  I  fully  support  that.  And  of  course,  Army  Special  Ops  Com- 
mand is  a  component  of  that. 

General  Shinseki.  I  just  add  to  what  the  Secretary  has  already 
said.  The  restructuring  of  the  National  Guard  are  a  series  of  initia- 
tives that  go  back  to  1996,  when  we  started  the  Guard  Division  re- 
design. Very  much  our  structure,  Active  and  Reserve  Component 
are  sort  of  focused  on  a  big  war  scenario.  And  then  we  found  our- 
selves in  1990s  going  to  lots  of  other  requirements  that  pulled  for- 


134 

ward  Guard  and  Army  Reserve  formations  who  were  going  simulta- 
neously with  us  and  have  caused  us  to  look  at  the  mix  and  also 
the  texture  of  what  was  in  those  Guard  and  Reserve  Components. 

That  is  why  you  find  in  the  Army  Reserve  such  a  preponderance 
of  civil  affairs  units  that  were  being  used  with  great  regularity  in 
places  like  Bosnia  and  Kosovo.  It  has  always  caused  us  to  look  at 
the  heavy  formations  in  the  Guard.  And  the  initiative  that  the  Sec- 
retary just  described  is  our  effort  to  better  posture  them  for  the 
missions  that  were  more  likely,  that  was  lightening  them  up  for  a 
variety  of  call-ups. 

I  mentioned  six  Stryker  brigades  earlier.  One  of  those  Stryker 
brigades  goes  to  a  National  Guard  unit  and  was  intended  to  get 
them  understanding  their  part  of  this  transformation  that  the  en- 
tire Army  is  going  to  undergo.  It  is  also  an  early  investment  in 
their  understanding  of  what  it  is  going  to  take,  because  it  takes  a 
little  longer,  what  it  is  going  to  take  for  them  to  go  through  the 
process  of  having  to  turn  in  heavy  equipment  and  begin  to  raise 
the  leadership.  That  is  what  this  Stryker  brigade  is  intended  to  do, 
raise  the  leadership  that  is  going  to  be  useful  to  the  Guard  in  the 
future. 

With  regard  to  the  SOCOM  question,  SOCOM  under  this  fabric 
of  Global  War  on  Terrorism  is  a  supported  command  for  planning, 
and  could  be  a  supported  command  for  execution.  But  that,  at  some 
point,  is  determined  on  exactly  what  the  operation  is. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Now,  thank  you.  If  I  may  have  a  follow-up,  Mr. 
Chairman,  with  regard  to  the  Reserve  part  of  my  question. 

Today  it  seems  to  me  that  we  rely  very  heavily — I  guess  this  was 
brought  home  to  me  last  week.  They  are  in  the  process  of  mobiliz- 
ing up  at  Ft.  Dix,  and  they  are  doing  300  people  a  day.  You  kind 
of  have  to  see  that  to  really  have  it  driven  home  how  much  we  rely 
on  Reserve  forces. 

And  I  guess  my  follow-up  question  is,  in  a  general  sense,  I  under- 
stand that  the  units,  the  Secretary  said  this  last  week,  the  units 
that  are  called  up  so  frequently  that  it  makes  them  almost  active 
forces  are  no  longer  operating  as  Reserve  forces.  So  I  understand 
that  part. 

But  the  heavy  reliance  that  we  see  today  on  Reserve  forces,  for 
all  of  the  appropriate  reasons  that  we  have  been  reljdng  on  them 
for  the  last  decade  or  so,  do  we  expect  that  to  continue  at  roughly 
the  current  level? 

Secretary  White.  Well,  I  think  that  is  the  A  number  1  question 
that  obviously  confronts  us  with  114,000  Reserves  mobilized.  Is 
what  happens  post  whatever  decisions  the  President  makes  in  re- 
gard to  Iraq?  And  what  in  the  mid-  to  long-term  does  it  look  like 
that  we  are  going  to  have  to  maintain  on  the  RC  side  depending 
upon  what  our  residual  obligations  are  in  that  part  of  the  world? 
I  think  it  is  very  hard  to  predict  at  this  point  what  that  is  going 
to  be. 

I  think  when  you  look  at  the  Reserves  that  is  the  real  question 
that  comes  to  bear,  is  that — is  we  are  having  wonderful  response 
from  Reserve  units,  people  come,  they  are  mobilized,  they  go,  they 
do  a  great  job.  But  if  we  are  in  this  same  spot  two  years  from  now 
or  three  years  from  now,  the  question  is  can  we  sustain  it  on  the 
RC  side,  and  what  are  the  long-term  implications?  I  don't  know 


135 

what  the  answer  is  now.  We  will  have  to  wait  and  see  as  events 
unfold. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman  [presiding].  Thank  the  gentleman. 

Dr.  Snyder. 

Dr.  Snyder.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Appreciate  you  gentle- 
men being  here.  I  was  reading  this  Congressional  Quarterly  (CQ) 
today,  Mr.  Secretary,  in  which  there  is  an  article  in  here  about  how 
Senator  Roberts  had  a  telephone  conversation  with  his  wife  about 
where  the  tarp  was.  I  suppose  you  can  put  a  tarp  up  with  duct 
tape,  I  don't  know,  but  when  I  hear  you  say  that  al-Qaeda  is  on 
the  run,  it  doesn't  feel  that  way  right  now,  I  don't  think,  to  the 
American  people.  And  words  are  important. 

I  know  the  British  Broadcasting  Corporation  (BBC)  was  criticized 
in  the  early  days  of  World  War  II  because  they  told  it  like  it  was, 
and  their  argument  always  was  when  things  start  going  our  way 
then  people  will  believe  us. 

But  that  may  have  been  in  the  spirit  of  the  budget  hearing  intro- 
duction, because  it— I  am  trying  to  decide  whether  to  get  camou- 
flage duct  tape  or  not. 

Let's  see.  General  Shinseki,  I  wanted  to  ask  you;  you  made  the 
comment  in  response  to  Mr.  Reyes'  question  that  you  had  not  been 
successful  in  making  your  case,  I  think  with  regard  to  the  end 
strength  numbers. 

I  know  of  your  distinguished  service  in  Vietnam,  and  I  was  re- 
minded of  the  first  General,  Marine  General  Krulak,  that  was  dis- 
cussed very  eloquently  in  the  book,  A  Bright  Shining  Lie,  in  which 
early  on  he  had  been  a  great  supporter  of  certain  policies  and  how 
the  war  was  conducted  in  Vietnam,  but  soon,  at  some  point,  be- 
came convinced  that  in  fact  by  doing,  building  these  Khesahn  like 
bases  we  were  playing  into  the  hands  of  exactly  what  the  North  Vi- 
etnamese wanted  us  to  do,  because  they  were  trying  to  draw  Amer- 
icans in  to  kill  them  and  decrease  American— the  resolve  to  stay 
there.  It  was  only  after  the  war  was  over  that  these  kind  of  minor- 
ity opinions  got  to  the  policy  level  area. 

And  so  the  question  I  wanted  to  ask  you  is,  you  mentioned  that 
one  effort  where  you  have  not  made  your  case.  You  have  got  four 
months  to  go.  Give  me  four  or  five  of  what  you  consider  the  most 
significant  areas,  as  you  are  looking  at  what  I  assume  is  the  end 
of  your  military  career,  that  you  have  not  been  successful  in  mak- 
ing your  case,  that  you  think  policymakers  ought  to  know  about. 

General  SHINSEKI.  Well,  I  think  you  started  with  end  strength. 
Let  me  start  there.  I  think  3  V2  years  ago  we  had  a  pretty  good  idea 
that  the  Army,  for  the  missions  it  was  given  was  too  small,  and 
then  we  had  to  conduct  the  analysis  and  make  the  case,  and  we 
have  continued  to  do  that. 

We  have  not  arrived  at  the  decision  that  says  that  discussions  of 
increasing  Army  end  strength  is  at  a  point  where  a  decision  is 
going  to  be  made.  But  through  the  wisdom  of  the  Congress,  you 
provided  a  2  percent  flex  that  allows  the  Secretary  to  exceed  the 
480  authorization  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  operational  missions 
given  to  the  Army,  and  we  have  done  that. 

So  while  I  say  that  I  haven't  been  successful  in  getting  an  au- 
thorized end  strength  increase,  as  the  Secretary  indicated,  we  are 


136 

at  489,000  soldiers  today,  operating  with  that  2  percent  flex.  So 
that  has  given  us  some  rehef.  I  will  continue  to  make  these  argu- 
ments, participate  in  the  debate,  and  remind  folks  that  when  we 
tend  to  run  these  operations,  whether  it  is  Bosnia,  which  is  today 
Reserve  Component,  the  Sinai,  today  Reserve  Component,  Kosovo, 
an  Active  Component  unit  but  scheduled  to  go  to  Reserve  Compo- 
nent assignment  here. 

These  day-to-day  missions  begin  to  put  pressure  on  our  Reserve 
components  in  the  way  that  a  potential  Iraq  mission  does  not,  at 
least  not  here  at  the  outset.  But  it  is  that  long-term  reliance  on  Re- 
serve Component  soldiers  to  leave  jobs  and  families  and  take  on 
these  missions.  That,  to  me,  is  a  suggestion  that  we  need  to  have 
some  right-sizing  here,  and  I  think  it  is  a  debate  that  I  think  that 
we  have  good  answers  for  and  we  will  continue  to  do  that.  But 
again,  we  are  not  constrained  by  the  480  authorization  because  of 
the  flex  that  you  have  given  us  to  take  care  of  these  operational 
requirements. 

We  tend  to  go  and  stay  for  a  long  time  where  we  go.  We  have 
been  in  Bosnia  now  I  think  7  years  and  Kosovo  for  at  least  3  or 
4  and  the  Sinai  for  22,  and  that  begins  to  affect  the  inventory  of 
what  you  have  to  do  with  every  new  operational  requirement. 

Secretary  White.  We  made  some  progress  as  the  Secretary 
talked  about.  The  Bosnia  commitment  is  lower,  been  drawn  down, 
the  Kosovo  commitment  is  lower.  We  are  about  to  cut  in  half  basi- 
cally the  Sinai  commitment.  So  that  gives  us  a  little  more  head 
space,  but  it  is  still  a  real  challenge. 

Dr.  Snyder.  Thank  you.  Now,  that  was  one.  You  didn't  complete 
out  a  lengthy  list  of  minority  views,  but  I  guess  I  didn't  really  ex- 
pect you  to. 

General  Shinseki.  I  guess  the  other  point  would  be  the  challenge 
that  every  Chief  has  to  balance  the  current  readiness  requirements 
with  making  sure  that  future  readiness  is  well  looked  after,  and 
that  balance  has  forced  us  to  take  some  risk  here  in  the  near-term 
in  order  to  put  the  required  funding  to  be  able  to  get  momentum 
for  the  future,  because  that  future  readiness  someday  becomes  to- 
day's readiness  and  if  you  are  not  invested  there  what  you  end  up 
with  is  some  serious,  serious  problems. 

So  it  is  that  balance  that  we  continue  to  try  to  find,  and  my  offer 
to  this  committee  is  the  2004  budget  is  a  very,  you  know,  finely 
balanced  set  of  priorities  by  the  Army.  There  isn't  enough  to  do  ev- 
erything, but  it  is  a  balance  we  have  sought  to  find  here,  and  part 
of  that  balance  is  putting  our  Stryker  brigade  combat  teams  in 
place  to  handle  the  short-term  rapid  requirements  that  we  have 
wrestled  with  for  the  last  ten  years. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  McHugh. 

Mr.  McHUGH.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Gentlemen,  thank  you 
so  much  for  being  here,  and  I  certainly  want  to  associate  myself 
with  the  comments  of  all  of  my  colleagues  who  have  expressed 
their  appreciation,  as  I  do,  for  your  joint  service  and  all  of  the  great 
work  that  you  have  done  on  behalf  of  our  absolutely  amazing 
United  States  Army. 

And,  General  Shinseki,  I  want  to  say  particularly  how  much  I 
have  enjoyed  working  with  you  through  this  committee,  through 


137 

the  Army  Caucus,  and  how  much  I  admire  your  devotion  to  country 
and  to  your  troops.  You  are  an  inspiration,  sir. 

Right  now  I  am  about  as  proud  as  I  have  ever  been  as  Mr. 
McHugh  of  the  new  Total  Force  Subcommittee.  Of  course,  I  haven't 
been  that  chairman,  under  that  title  very  long,  so  I  don't  have 
much  to  compare  it  against.  But  all  of  my  colleagues  have  been 
talking  about  personnel  issues,  which  is  our  main  area  of  concern. 
So  I  find  myself  somewhat  at  a  loss  for  fresh  material. 

So  let  me  sing  an  old  refrain,  and  that  is  the  concern  about  end 
strength  that  has  been  discussed  here,  and  I  did  discuss  this  at  our 
hearing  last  week  with  Secretary  Rumsfeld.  So  I  am  on  the  record. 
But  I  am  so  deeply  troubled  by  it,  I  don't  think  we  can  say  it  too 
often.  I  think  that  many  of  my  colleagues  feel  the  same  way. 

Some  have  mentioned  today  that  they  visited  our  troops  in 
Kosovo  and  Bosnia.  I  have  done  that.  I  was  with  the  10th  Moun- 
tain Division  up  at  K-2  just  before  they  went  into  Shari  Kot  and 
Operation  Anaconda. 

Mr.  McHuGH.  As  Mr.  Hefley  said,  they  are  amazing  people,  all. 
And  they  are  doing  terrific  jobs. 

Just  recently,  I  had  the  honor  of  heading  a  Congressional  delega- 
tion (CODED  to  visit  some  of  our  troops  throughout  all  of  the  serv- 
ices w-ith  Mr.  Hayes  and  Mr.  Miller  and  Mr.  Mclntyre,  but  we  real- 
ly did  focus  on  the  Guard  and  Reserve  troops,  kicked  the  officers 
out  of  the  room  and  had  some  good  heart-to-heart  discussions  with 
these  folks.  As  you  gentlemen  know,  they  are  no  less  than  an  inte- 
gral and  absolutely  critical  part  of  this  military  and,  in  you  gentle- 
men's case,  this  Army  and  the  active  side  of  the  equation  and  as 
each  one  of  the  commanding  officers  we  have  spoken  with  told  us, 
their  missions  couldn't  be  completed  without  those  Guard  and  Re- 
sGrvGS 

But  we  heard  some  things  that  were  disturbing.  While  those 
folks  were  proud  of  the  work  they  were  doing,  were  proud  of  their 
country,  most  of  them  served  in  volunteer  status.  They  were  begin- 
ning to  feel  the  strain  very  significantly.  We  heard  stories  about 
how  some  of  the  Guard  and  Reserve  people  were  now  questioning 
when  they  went  to  apply  for  a  job  if  they  should  list  their  service 
on  a  resume.  I  found  that  incredible  and  heartbreaking. 

We  heard,  of  course,  about  broken  famihes,  lost  jobs,  lost  busi- 
nesses. While  they  were  willing  to  pay  that  price,  many  had  been 
called  up  multiple  times  in  the  last  24  to  36  months.  Some  of  them 
had  found  their  call-ups  now  going  in  for  two  and  three  years.  And 
I  just  think  it  is  critical— and,  obviously,  that  is  the  Guard  and  Re- 
serve, but  it  is  all  a  unified  force.  It  all  comes  back  to  end  strength. 
As  I  said  to  the  Secretary  last  week,  I  fully  support  this  exam- 
ination to  take  a  look  at  which  jobs  are  where  and  what  the  proper 
balance  is  and  to  the  extent  that  can  alleviate  some  of  the  pres- 
sures on  end  strength  I  think  that  is  wonderful.  But  I  question- 
Secretary  White,  you  said  happens  in  two  or  three  years.  I  am 
truly  worried  from  the  Guard  and  Reserve  side  we  don't  have  two 
or  three  years  to  wait.  I  am  not  sure  they  can  last  that  long. 

So  I  just  wanted  to  restate  that  for  the  record.  But  I  will  ask— 
and  certainly  if  either  of  you  gentlemen  would  like  to  respond  to 
that  you  are  welcome  to.  But  I  would  ask  one  question  related. 
Right  now,  you  have  put  an  end  to  any  permanent  change  of  sta- 


138 

tions.  You  got  a  freeze  on  that.  I  think  you  have  been  pretty  darn 
successful  in  Umiting  the  implementation  of  stop-loss.  That  is  a 
real  red  light  to  troops,  and  it  is  a  real  red  light  to  our  end 
strength  situation. 

But  let  me  pose  a  hypothetical.  If  we  find  ourselves  in  a  military 
direct  battle  confrontation  with  Iraq,  would  you  be  able  to  do  that 
without  further  utilization  of  stop-loss? 

Secretary  White.  Well,  what  we  are  doing  right  now,  in  addition 
to  the  stop-loss  which  has  been  going  on  for  a  while,  that  is  about 
3,000  people  currently  on  the  active  side  and  selected  military  oper- 
ational specialties  (MOS)  with  the  maximum  amount  of  time  we 
would  hold  anyone  is  a  year  beyond  their  normal  expiration  of  serv- 
ice, is  for  the  units  that  are  deploying  for  potential  commitment  in 
Iraq,  we  are  going  to  freeze  those  people  in  those  units  once  they 
deploy  and  keep  them  for  the  duration  of  whatever  happens  and 
whatever — so  that  if  you  take  the  average  division,  say  the  4th  In- 
fantry Division  which  is  on  the  move,  inside  that  division,  even 
though  it  is  at  100  percent  strength  across  the  board  or  more  than 
100  percent  strength,  there  will  be  a  certain  chunk  that  is  not 
deploy  able  for  a  variety  of  reasons.  We  are  not  going  to  rotate  peo- 
ple out  of  that  division,  and  we  will  fill  those  holes  so  that  that  di- 
vision, should  the  President  make  the  decision,  when  it  goes  across 
the  line  of  departure  (LD),  it  is  going  to  have  crews  that  have  been 
together  for  awhile  and  they  will  be  100  percent  full  in  the  turrets 
and  the  foxholes. 

So  that  is  the  other  piece  we  are  going  to  put  in  place  to  make 
sure  we  are  in  best  position  to  do  what  the  President  wants  to  do. 

Mr.  McHUGH.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 

If  I  may,  one  follow-up.  With  respect  to  the  studies  and  the  ex- 
aminations, et  cetera — and  Mr.  Secretary  is  happy — I  thought  I 
heard  you  say  you  agree  about  the  concern  about  having  two  or 
three  years  to  wait  to  fix  this.  General  or  Mr.  Secretary,  when  do 
we  stop  studying  and  start  making  decisions?  What  is  the  time  line 
on  this  process? 

Secretary  WHITE.  I  think  it  has  got  to  be  quick.  I  mean,  because 
you  are  going  to  want  to  reposture  the  force.  Both — the  Secretary 
talked  about  potential  positioning  in  Germany  and  how  we  support 
that.  We  have  got  to  know  that  on  the  backside  of  whatever  hap- 
pens in  the  next  few  months  both — and  plus  on  the  AC-RC  mix, 
as  well.  I  absolutely  agree  with  you.  I  don't  think  we  have  a  long 
time  to  ponder  this.  It  has  got  to  be  soon. 

General  Shinseki.  I  am  in  agreement.  I  think  we  have  got  some 
pretty  good  indications  right  now  of  the  stress  on  Reserve  Compo- 
nent units  by  virtue  of  how  we  have  been  using  them  for  the  last 
five  years,  and  that  is  part  of  the  end  strength  discussion  we  had 
earlier.  Some  ways  you  can  get  stress  off  of  that  is  by  picking  up 
those  missions  back  in  the  Active  Components  force.  That  is  why 
I  will  continue  to  make  the  point. 

Another  piece  of  this  is  how  you  call  the  Reserve  components  up, 
and  we  need  to  do  that  better.  I  mean,  there  is  the  expectation  that 
there  is  a  30-day  period  in  which  an  alert  will  occur  so  that  they 
can  take  care  of  closing  out  both  their  personal  and  their  profes- 
sional responsibilities  and  informing  employers  they  are  about  to 
go  off  for  deployment  and  employers  can  then  make  adjustments. 


139 

We  are  calling  them  up  on  a  very  short  time,  and  that  has  added 
pressure  here.  We  need  to  do  that  better. 

Mr.  McHUGH.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Certainly.  And  with  the  indulgence  of  the  com- 
mittee, the  ranking  member  has  a  point  he  wanted  to  ask  that  re- 
lates to  Mr.  McHugh's  question. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Following  up  on  Mr.  McHugh's  comments,  is  it  not 
a  fact.  General,  that  1,900  special  forces  have  been  taken  out  of  the 
Army  hide,  the  regular  Army  hide? 

General  Shinseki.  In  this  budget  we  have  paid  for  adding  rough- 
ly 1,900  special  operations  personnel  to  the  Special  Operations 
Command,  and  we  have  also  provided  about  $1.1  bilhon  to  increase 
their  capabilities.  Technically,  that  was  done,  put  in  the  budget  be- 
fore we  have  had  the  latest  reviews  so  there  could  be  more  re- 
quests, and  we  will  consider  them  and  balance  priorities  when  that 
arrives. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Israel. 

Mr.  Israel.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Secretary,  welcome.  General. 

I  have  a  question  for  the  General  concerning  Future  Combat  Sys- 
tem as  an  integral  component  of  the  Army's  objective  forces.  Over- 
all, as  I  understand  it,  research,  development,  test  &  evaluation 
(RDT&E)  will  increase  from  $7.5  bilhon  to  $9.1  billion  and  that  is 
offset  by  a  procurement  cut  of  about  $1.7  billion.  As  I  continue  to 
understand  it,  the  purpose  of  that  is  to  accelerate  the  interim  oper- 
ational capability  of  Future  Combat  System  from  fiscal  year  2010 
to  2008. 

I  have  two  questions.  Number  one,  can  you  provide  us  with  the 
status  of  the  Future  Combat  System;  and  are  you  confident  in  fact 
that  those  systems  will  be  operational  in  2008?  Then,  after  that,  I 
have  a  follow-up  question. 

General  SfflNSEKl.  Yes.  In  May  of  this  year.  Congressman,  we  go 
to  what  is  described  in  the  acquisition  terminology  as  a  major  deci- 
sion point.  It  is  called  a  Milestone  B  Defense  Acquisition  Board. 
And  it  is  at  that  point  we  intend  to  make  the  case  that  all  of  this 
is  on  track  and,  therefore,  the  deliverables  in  the  2008  time  frame 
ought  to  be  supported. 

There  is  another  decision  point  in  the  year  2006  which  is  called 
Milestone  C,  and  that  is  the  production  decision.  So  both  of  these 
are  major  events. 

You  are  correct  that  there  is  a  downturn  in  procurement  in  2004, 
but  that  is  compensated  for  by  the  increase  by  about  $2  billion  in 
RDT&E.  When  you  take  both  of  them  together,  which  is  generally 
a  modernization  account,  you  will  see  an  increase  between  2003, 
2004  overall. 

We  are  comfortable  that  we  are  putting  the  money  in  the  right 
place,  which  is  resource  development  and  testing,  to  be  able  to 
make  the  case  in  2006  that  it  is  time  to  spend  more  money  in  pro- 
curement. We  could  put  more  money  into  procurement  if  it  were 
available,  but  we  think  we  have  balanced  the  priorities  appro- 
priately here. 

Mr.  Israel.  Just  so  I  am  understanding  this,  with  the  budget  de- 
cisions that  we  are  making  for  2004  you  are  comfortable  that  FCS 


140 

will  have  an  operation  capability  by  2008,  or  you  are  going  to  make 
a  decision  later  this  year  that  it  may  or  may  not  be  operational  by 
2008? 

General  Shinseki.  I  am  comfortable  that  we  will  have  in  May  of 
this  year  the  indications  that  we  ought  to  go  forward  with  the  oper- 
ation, and  that  is  a  systems  design  and  demonstration.  It  is  really 
pulling  in  the  technologies  that  we  have  been  investing  in  for  the 
last  two  years  to  demonstrate  that  it  has  been  money  well  invested. 
The  potential  is  there,  and  we  should  go  forward  into  system  de- 
sign where  you  put  those  technologies  together  in  platforms  in  a 
system  of  systems  concept  that  says  in  2008  we  intend  to  field  this 
kind  of  an  organization.  But  the  real  production  decision  to  start 
bringing  things  off  of  a  production  line  is  a  2006  decision.  So  we 
have  two  to  three  years  yet  of  comprehensive  work  to  do  to — with 
reporting  back  to  this  committee  and  others  exactly  how  we  are 
tracking  progress  to  2008. 

Mr.  Israel.  Okay. 

Secretary  White.  The  first  vehicle  would  be  fielded  in  2008.  The 
first  unit  would  be  2010,  about  two  years  later.  The  first  brigade 
side  unit  would  be  2010. 

Mr.  Israel.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 

One  final  question.  Could  you  give  me  an  appraisal  of  how  we 
are  doing  with  the  development  of  the  Army  objective  force?  I  have 
been  a  very  strong  supporter  of  that  concept.  I  am  curious  as  to 
your  thoughts.  Are  we  going  where  we  need  to  go?  Does  this  budget 
help  you  to  go  where  you  have  to  go?  Are  there  aspects  of  the  leg- 
acy force  that  will  need  to  be  retained  over  the  next  several  years 
as  we  transition  to  the  objective  force? 

General  Shinseki.  The  legacy  force  is  going  to  be  with  us  for 
some  time.  Even  if  we  went  to  all  the  decisions  we  need  to  put  into 
place,  it  is  a  process  of  changing  out  formation  by  formation  over 
time.  So  even  if  we  start  in  the  year  2010,  in  the  year  2020,  2025, 
you  will  still  have  some  legacy  formation  there  that  is  awaiting 
their  turn  in  the  process. 

I  am  comfortable  that  we  have  gotten  tremendous  momentum 
and  especially  out  of  our  congressional  committees  to  give  us  both 
the  flexibility  and  the  momentum  in  support  for  our  budget  to  get 
to  the  objective  force  in  2008-2010  time  frame.  The  deliverables  on 
exactly  what  those  things  are  going  to  begin  to  be  aired  here  in  the 
May  of  2003  as  we  make  the  first  presentation  and  then  between 
2003  to  2006  demonstrating  what  technologies  are  available,  what 
ones  we  will  pull  down  and  put  into  the  first  block  and  the  second 
block. 

Because,  in  all  of  this,  some  technologies  will  come  along  very 
quickly.  They  are  mature  today.  We  are  working  with  them.  There 
are  other  technologies  that  we  are  investing  in,  but  the  potential 
is  so  great,  even  though  we  don't  have  an  exact  date  for  deliver- 
able, we  think  it  is  wise  to  continue  to  invest  there.  Then  what  we 
need  to  identify  in  all  of  this  is  what  are  the  dry  holes  that  we 
don't  want  to  invest  any  more  money  in.  All  of  that  is  part  of  a 
sequenced  set  of  reviews  that  go  on  inside  the  Department  that  the 
Secretary  and  I  have  to  look  at  and  share  with  OSD. 

Mr.  Israel.  General,  thank  you  for  your  response. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  yield  back. 


141 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Thornberry. 

Mr.  Thornberry.  General  Shinseki,  you  began  to  make  changes 
in  the  Army,  of  course,  before  this  administration  took  office;  and 
you  received  a  lot  of  criticism  from  inside  the  Army  for  changing 
too  much.  You  received  a  lot  of  criticism  from  outside  the  Army  for 
not  changing  enough.  Obviously,  we  are  living  in  volatile  times; 
and  it  seems  pretty  clear  that  all  the  military  services  are  going 
to  have  to  make  other  kinds  of  changes. 

I  guess  I  am  interested  from  your  perspective  in  what  advice  or 
suggestions  you  might  have  not  about  what  changes  to  make  but 
about  how  to  make  changes  inside  services,  particularly  the  Army. 
Some  of  them  may  apply  to  us,  some  of  them  may  apply  to  your 
successor,  but  what  do  you  think  are  the  key  things  that  one  needs 
to  focus  on  when  you  are  changing  a  strong  culture  like  a  military 
service? 

General  Shinseki.  Congressman,  that  is  an  excellent  question. 
This  is  one  that  I  don't  know  that  I  am  expert  in.  I  always  go  back 
and  take  a  look  at  the  3  V2  years  we  have  walked. 

But  inside  the  Army  there  are  our  own  communities — I  mean, 
you  are  familiar  with  them.  They  are  the  heavy,  the  light  commu- 
nities, the  special  operations  and  the  conventional  forces,  our  com- 
bat arms,  combat  services  support,  combat  support  branches  and 
Active  and  Reserve  Components.  So  it  is  a  very  complex,  large  or- 
ganization. But  the  passion  for  service  in  uniform  is  down  in  those 
communities.  So  in  trying  to  get  the  Army  to  stand  up  on  short  no- 
tice and  start  moving  off  in  the  same  direction,  that  is  really  the 
challenge,  how  to  make  this  meaningful  in  ways  that  every  piece 
of  the  formation  feels  this  is  important.  And  that  has  been  a  pa- 
tient process. 

Early  on,  we  were — it  was  suggested  to  do  this  via  the  media, 
just  do  a  full  court  press  in  marketing.  We  have  taken  the  other 
route,  and  that  was  to  educate  the  force  internally  and  in  very  pa- 
tient ways  of  visiting  brigade  size  units,  talking  at  officer 
precommand  courses.  I  think  over  time  it  has  been  more  patiently 
done,  but  there  is  great  resonance  inside  the  force  for  change. 

Exactly  what  that  is  going  to  be — I  think  the  youngsters  will 
have  a  good  idea  of  what  the  interstate  ought  to  be  in  2010.  There 
are  majors  graduating  from  our  command  and  general  staff  college 
today  that  15  years  from  now  will  be  commanding  some  organiza- 
tion at  the  two-star  level.  There  are  lieutenant  colonels  that  are 
battalion  commanders  today  which  in  ten  years,  which  is  not  far 
down  the  road,  will  be  commanding  two-star  organizations.  There 
are  colonels  who  are  completing  grade  command  today  and  in 
about  five  years  will  be  commanding  these  formations.  The  wealth 
of  talent  that  we  have  put  in  place  through  our  schooling  and  our 
operational  assignments  bodes  well  for  getting  great  answers  on  ex- 
actly what  the  Future  Combat  System  and  objective  force  will  be. 

I  guess  my  challenge  is  how  to  get  as  much  done  in  a  very  short 
tenure,  four  years,  how  to  get  as  much  momentum  and  education 
going  when  you  know  that  the  patience  of  education  is  more  impor- 
tant than  the  bumper  sticker  of  marketing.  Marketed  the  wrong 
way,  when  a  chief  leaves  at  the  end  of  four  years  a  lot  of  it  will 
leave  with  him  if  you  are  not  careful.  And  the  intent  of  this  chief, 


142 

of  this  Secretary  and  the  Secretary  before  him  was  to  put  in  place 
for  the  Army  and  the  Nation  a  long-term  strategy  for  change  that 
would  be  meaningful  to  members  of  this  committee  who  could  see 
what  that  meant  and  would  be  able  to  sustain  support  for  it. 

Mr.  Thornberry.  Do  you  think  that  the  culture  inside  the  Army 
helps  and  encourages  those  majors  and  folks  to  come  out  with  their 
new  ideas,  their  different  way  of  doing  things?  Or  as  they  grow  up 
and  get  more  invested  in  their  career  do  we  tamp  that  down  too 
much? 

General  Shinseki.  I  think  in  any  large  organization  there  is  al- 
ways the  danger  of  not  listening  well.  But  I  go  and  speak  at  every 
precommand  course,  commanders  that  are  going  to  go  out  to  the 
force,  that  occurs  several  times  a  year,  and  I  can  tell  you  they  are 
not  bashful  about  telling  this  chief  what  needs  to  be  done  better. 
In  the  gatherings  I  have  not  just  with  young  officers  but  with 
young  soldiers  as  well,  I  get  told  we  are  not  paying  them  enough; 
and,  of  course,  I  agree.  I  say,  absolutely. 

Every  time  I  appear  before  a  committee  this  time  I  carry  the  case 
for  doing  better  at  taking  care  of  your  needs.  But  I  also  sort  of  re- 
mind them  that  that  is  not  just  about  money,  this  relationship,  be- 
cause there  is  a  date  out  there  where  a  mission  is  so  tough  that 
no  amount  of  money  is  going  to  make  sense;  and  our  youngsters 
understand  that. 

I  don't  think  any  organization  is  immune  from  the  danger  you 
describe,  and  we  have  to  consciously  go  out  there  and  educate  and 
listen  to  the  response.  That  is  why  I  say  this  patient  process  that 
we  have  taken  in  the  long  run  will  serve  this  institution  well. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

The  gentleman  from  Georgia,  Mr.  Marshall,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  Marshall.  Secretary  White,  General  Shinseki,  I  guess  I  will 
start  with  regrets.  General,  that  you  are  not  going  to  be  here 
longer.  I  have  watched  you  on  the  TV  over  the  years  and  have  been 
very  impressed  with  your  representation  of  the  Army.  I  hope  you 
stay  actively  involved  in  one  way  or  another. 

I  come  from  middle  Georgia.  We  are  not  a  wealthy  area  but  an 
extremely  patriotic  part  of  the  country.  I  think  you  would  be  hard 
pressed  to  find  a  place  in  the  country  that  has  a  more  patriotic 
feeling  towards  service  and  the  military.  My  district  abuts  Fort 
Benning,  abuts  Fort  Stewart.  Robbins  Air  Force  base  is  right  in  the 
middle  of  the  district.  Fort  Gordon  is  not  far  away.  I  guess — I  don't 
know  that  I  have  a  question  as  much  as  I  have  a  comment,  and 
the  comment  might  call  for  a  reply,  and  it  has  already  been  men- 
tioned. 

Lately,  within  the  last  six  months  or  year,  I  have  had  a  number 
of  Reservists  and  National  Guard  folks  who,  frankly,  in  part  are  in 
the  Reserves  or  National  Guard  because  they  want  to  supplement 
their  income.  They  are  not  wealthy  people,  and  it  is  important  to 
them  to  be  able  to  do  that.  But  they  have  talked  about  withdraw- 
ing. 

Then  I  have  had  others  saying  they  have  been  thinking  about 
going  into  the  National  Guard  or  Reserves,  but  the  problems  with 
leaving  home  for  long  periods  of  time,  the  threat  of  that  hanging 
over  their  head  discourages  them  from  doing  so.  It  causes  me  con- 


143 

cern  for  our  readiness  if  we  are  going  to  be  relying  upon  National 
Guard  and  Reserves. 

It  is  just  a  comment. 

Secretary  White.  It  is  a  matter  of  balance.  We  have  the  Guard 
and  Reserve  for  a  variety  of  purposes,  but  one  of  them  is  to  call 
them  up  in  times  of  emergency  and  so  forth,  and  that  means  that 
in  today's  world  there  is  a  high  likelihood  that  if  you  are  in  a  Re- 
serve formation  at  some  point  you  are  going  to  be  asked  to  come 
on  active  duty  and  do  some  thing. 

The  flip  side  of  it  is,  as  Congressman  McHugh  talked  about,  is 
if  this  becomes  almost  routine  and  repetitive,  then  you  begin  to 
look  very  much  like  an  Active  Component  soldier;  and  some  people 
will  say  that  is  not  what  they  signed  up  for.  And  achieving  the  bal- 
ance so  that  we  get  the  support  we  need  but  we  don't  overuse  it 
I  think  is  what  we  all  seek. 

Mr.  Marshall.  I  have  nothing  further,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Simmons. 

Mr.  Simmons.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman;  and  thank  you,  gentle- 
men, for  your  testimony. 

I  know  there  has  been  a  lot  of  focus  on  Reserve  affairs  and  Re- 
serve issues,  but  that  is  my  set  of  questions,  too,  and  I  would  like 
to  pursue  it  a  little  bit. 

I  think  some  of  you  may  know  I  served  on  active  duty  for  4  years 
but  was  in  the  Reserves  for  30.  From  1970  to  1990  in  my  Reserve 
assignment  I  was  never  once  mobilized  and  never  once  deployed. 
But  from  1991  to  the  present,  my  Reserve  unit  had  soldiers  mobi- 
lized on  three  different  occasions  for  up  to  270  days;  and  the  unit 
is  currently  now  completely  deployed  in  support  of  our  operations 
in  the  Middle  East. 

I  realize  this  is  a  military  intelligence  unit  and,  like  civil  affairs 
and  some  of  the  other  units,  the  numbers  of  deployments  that 
these  units  encounter  are  substantial,  but  this  is  the  problem,  too. 
Because  as  the  unit  commander,  I  had  members  of  my  unit  coming 
back,  and  their  jobs  were  gone.  Their  companies  would  reorganize, 
their  positions  would  be  taken  away,  and  they  would  be  offered  a 
job,  but  it  wasn't  an  equivalent  job. 

I  had  members  of  the  Guard  in  Connecticut  who  work  for  the 
Corrections  Department  and,  because  they  are  unionized,  their  con- 
tract is  submitted  to  the  State  Legislature  for  approval,  and  the  de- 
tails of  that  contract  deny  them  their  full  service  as  members  of  the 
Guard  and  Reserve.  Even  though  the  Attorney  General  of  the  State 
of  Connecticut  has  declared  in  a  declaratory  judgrnent  that  the  De- 
partment of  Corrections  is  out  of  order  and  not  in  sync  with  the 
law,  these  soldiers  continue  to  be  denied  pay  for  inactive  duty 
training  (IDT)  and  additional  inactive  duty  training  (AIDT);  and 
my  efforts  as  a  state  rep  and  that  of  a  Member  of  Congress  have 
been  unsuccessful  in  resolving  that  issue.  Maybe  that  is  something 
I  should  pursue  with  you  gentlemen  with  your  Inspector  General 
(IG)  by  letter  correspondence  in  the  future. 

I  raise  these  issues  because  this  is  part  and  parcel  of  being  a 
Guardsman  and  being  a  Reservist  in  today's  environment.  These 
are  patriotic  people.  These  are  people  who  want  to  serve  as  twice 
the  citizen,  who  want  to  preserve  and  protect  their  country,  but 


144 

they  also  have  an  obhgation  to  their  families.  And  that  gets  to  my 
set  of  questions. 

Point  one,  when  I  look  at  the  end  strength  of  the  Guard  and  the 
Reserve,  it  is  350  and  205,  for  a  total  of  555,  with  Active  Compo- 
nent at  480.  It  seems  to  me  that  that  ratio  is  wrong.  It  is  almost 
one  to  one.  I  guess  my  feeling — my  gut  feeling  is  for  the  Guard  and 
Reserve  it  should  be  two  to  one  compared  to  the  active  component, 
given  the  fact  that  the  Cold  War  is  over,  the  strategic  balance  that 
we  had  is  gone,  and  that  the  peacekeeping  missions  and  the  small 
hot  war  anti-terrorist  missions  are  probably  going  to  increase  in 
the  new  environment,  and  you  are  just  going  to  wear  these  folks 
out,  and  they  are  going  to  get  out  of  the  service. 

That  is  point  one.  I  would  be  interested  in  your  comments  on 
that. 

Point  two,  mandatory  retirement.  I  was  at  the  peak  of  my  career, 
I  thought,  when  I  was  told  I  had  to  get  out.  I  was  so  upset  I  ran 
for  Congress.  You  can  imagine  how  my  family  and  everyone  else 
who  knew  me  felt  about  that. 

But,  anyway,  the  point  is  my  mandatory  retirement  was  because 
I  could  not  go  to  the  War  College  because — I  could  not  do  a  year 
of  residential  studies  at  the  War  College  because  I  was  an  elected 
official  in  my  state.  That  situation  replicates  itself  time  and  time 
again.  Somebody  like  myself  who  would  get  a  292  on  his  physical 
training  (PT)  test  and  was  at  the  top  of  his  game  as  a  military  in- 
telligence officer  was  kicked  out  after  five  years  in  rank  because  I 
couldn't  be  promoted.  And  yet  my  skills  were  as  good  as  they  ever 
were  in  my  military  career  and  my  physical  health  was  outstand- 
ing. The  unit  that  I  led  was  Best  Small  Unit  in  America  in  1995 
and  1996.  So  everything  had  to  make  sense  except  that  I  had  get 
out. 

That  is  replicated  across  the  board  as  well.  Officers  at  0-5,  O- 
6  ranks  are  being  forced  out,  senior  noncomissioned  officers  (NCO) 
are  being  forced  out  because  of  a  set  of  regulations  which  don't 
make  a  hell  of  a  lot  of  sense  under  the  current  environment. 

When  you  bring  in  that  junior  military  intelligence  (MI)  type  and 
train  them  up,  you  are  not  going  to  get  30  years  of  experience,  4 
languages  and  all  that  goes  with  it.  So  do  we  need  to  look  at  our 
mandatory  retirement  regulations? 

Those  are  my  questions. 

Secretary  White.  Let  me  take  the  second  one,  and  maybe  the 
chief  can  talk  about  the  AC-RC  balance. 

I  know  that  this  is  a  hot  button  for  the  Secretary,  Secretary 
Rumsfeld,  as  well,  that  there  are  a  lot  of  things  in  the  personnel 
system  that  do  not  track  to  today's  conditions.  One  of  them  is  man- 
datory retirement.  You  take  a  senior  NCO  who  has  done  30  years, 
he  is  48  years  old,  she  is  48  years  old,  you  put  them  out  on  the 
street  when  they  are  at  the  peak  of  their  game.  That  doesn't  make 
any  sense.  So  we  are  doing  a  lot  of  work  inside  the  entire  Depart- 
ment not  only  on  the  military  side  but  the  civilian  side  to  review 
these  things.  I  think  that  is  going  to  be  a  natural  flow  from  this 
pace  that  we  are  currently  at. 

And  the  other  piece  of  it  is  you  either  hire  somebody  for  39  days 
a  year  or  you  hire  them  for  365  days  a  year.  But  there  are  all  sorts 
of  places  in  between  where  individuals  might  want  to  contribute 


145 

more  time  that  would  be  tremendously  valuable  to  us  if  we  had 
more  flexible  work  rules.  So  that  is  another  dimension  of  the  same 
problem.  And  we  are  all  working  with  David  Chu,  the  under  sec- 
retary for  manpower,  on  this.  I  think  that  in  a  not-too-distant  fu- 
ture we  will  be  coming  back  to  you  with  some  suggestions. 

General  Shinseki.  On  the  question  about  the  size  of  the  Reserve 
components,  I  think  you  are  really  asking  a  question  about  right- 
sizing  active  and  Reserve  components.  One  of  the  ways  you  take 
pressure  off  of  Reserve  components  formations  is  to  have  available 
daily  routine,  quickly  deployable  Active  Component  capability,  as 
well;  and  I  think  the  question  about  right-sizing  the  Reserve  Com- 
ponents will  come  back  to  not  just  how  often  you  use  them  but 
what  you  use  them  for. 

I  think,  as  you  indicate,  the  members  who  join  up  are  lookmg  to 
provide  service  to  the  Nation  in  those  moments  of  crisis  when  the 
Nation  is  at  war.  We  get  a  certain  kind  of  response  from  patriotic 
response;  and  if  the  majority  of  the  missions  were  to  guard  a  local 
compound,  I  do  think  that  some  would  think  twice  about  whether 
or  not  that  was  a  good  way  to  spend  their  time,  as  opposed  to  being 
part  of  a  formation  that  was  on  standby  training  for  war  in  the 
event  the  Nation's  welfare  was  at  stake. 

I  am  not  sure  what  the  response  would  be,  but  I  think  it  would 
be  different.  Merely  doubling  the  size  of  the  Reserve  component  for 
a  set  of  unknown  missions— I  think  what  ought  to  come  out  here 
in  the  right-sizing  is  what  size  to  do  what  I  think  will  be  a  valuable 
outcome. 

Mr.  Simmons.  If  I  could  comment  briefly  further,  I  think  the 
thing  we  need  to  look  at,  and  it  was  suggested  in  your  previous  tes- 
timony, is,  you  know,  who  are  these  reservists,  what  is  their  back- 
ground and  training  and  what  are  they  being  called  on  to  do.  The 
idea  of  deploying  somebody  to  watch  a  Guard  shack  is  not  the  re- 
ality that  I  have  experienced.  I  have  experienced  a  real  demand  for 
military  intelligence,  MOS  type,  civil  affairs.  Often  these  people  are 
quite  successful  in  their  civilian  careers. 

In  the  case  of  military  intelligence,  the  unit  I  led  and  many  oth- 
ers provide  real  time  intelligence  to  the  Active  Components  even  on 
their  weekend  drills  and  during  their  inactive  duty  training  (IDT). 
So  they  are  already  connected  into  the  system,  and  they  know  their 
work  is  important  and  is  validated.  But  when  you  deploy  them 
then  you  pull  them  out  of  those  civilian  jobs  which  often  pay  more 
than  what  their  military  range  will  pay.  That  is  why  they  are  then 
put  in  the  crunch.  When  you  mobilize  them  and  deploy  them  fre- 
quently every  two  or  three  years  because  they  are  needed,  then 
that  becomes  the  problem,  and  I  think  that  it  is  an  important  area 
because  they  tend  to  leave.  Some  of  them,  like  myself,  we  just 
stuck  with  it.  Stupid,  I  guess,  but  I  love  the  work. 

So  that  is  what  I  would  be  looking  for,  not  necessarily  a  higher 
number  as  a  bottom  line  across  the  board  but  a  targeting  of  some 
of  the  Military  Occupational  Specialties  (MOS)  to  see  how  they  are 
being  utilized  and  seeing  what  the  adverse  impacts  are  so  we  can 
maybe  grow  that  part  of  the  force. 

General  Shinseki.  Some  of  the  guarding  that  is  going  on  security 
stateside  is  a  direct  response  to  11  September,  so  some  of  that  is 
not  having  visibility  and  what  that  would  impose  on  our  structure. 


146 

Mr.  Simmons.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  The  gentleman  has  brought  up  a  good  important 
subject  for  us  to  talk  about.  The  ranking  member  mentioned  to  me 
that  we  have  Guardsmen  guarding  Whiteman  Air  Force  Base  now. 
Mr.  Reyes,  my  good  friend  from  El  Paso,  mentioned  his  concerns 
that  privatization  was  displacing  and  misusing  folks  who  were  in 
the  Federal  work  force,  civil  servants.  And,  of  course,  the  Secretary 
has  complained  that  he  often  has  to  use  uniformed  folks  to  do  jobs 
that  they  shouldn't  be  doing  because  he  has  so  much  flexibility 
with  those  personnel  that  he  doesn't  have  with  the  civil  service. 

So  there  was  never  a  more  compelling  set  of  circumstances  in 
terms  of  forcing  us  to  sit  down  at  the  table  and  try  to  work  a  bal- 
ance here.  So,  Mr.  Simmons  and  Mr.  Reyes  and  the  ranking  mem- 
ber, Mr.  Skelton,  probably  would  be  a  good  set  of  folks  to  bring 
these  interests  to  the  table,  and  all  national  interests,  preserving 
our  Federal  work  force,  treating  them  right.  Number  two,  having 
folks  to  do  these  important  missions,  the  new  security  missions 
that  you  have,  but  number  three,  Mr.  Simmons'  concerns  that  if 
you  don't  use  these  folks  in  the  right  way  in  the  Guard  and  Re- 
serve, they  are  going  to  leave. 

So,  obviously,  that  theme  has  been  echoed  by  a  number  of  people, 
a  number  of  members  who  have  spoken.  So  we  have  got  a  lot  of 
work  to  do  here. 

Secretary  White.  You  make  a  good  point.  Because  the  other  di- 
mension here  is  that  the  average  age  of  a  civilian  is  50  or  51.  We 
either  figure  out  a  way  to  reshape  this  because  we  have  a  massive 
recruiting  challenge  to  revitalize  the  civilian  work  force  over  the 
next  ten  years  because  most  of  these  people  will  be  retirement  eli- 
gible. They  served  a  lifetime  and  have  done  a  great  job.  So,  that 
is  a  part  of  the  dimension,  as  well,  is  what  do  we  want  this  thing 
to  look  like  down  the  way  and  how  are  we  going  to  make  this  at- 
tractive so  we  can  compete  in  the  private  sector  to  get  the  right 
people? 

The  Chairman.  Well,  we  have  got  a  lot  of  work  to  do.  Maybe  we 
can  do  some  of  that  work  in  this  particular  defense  bill  coming  up. 
So  let's  engage  on  that  one. 

The  gentleman  from  Mississippi,  Mr.  Taylor. 

Mr.  Taylor.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Thank  you,  Secretary  White;  and,  General  Shinseki,  I,  for  one, 
am  really  going  to  miss  you.  I  think  you  have  been  a  great  chief. 
I  appreciate  the  time  you  have  spent  with  me  and  I  guess  with 
every  member  trying  to  make  us  aware  of  what  you  think  is  impor- 
tant for  the  Army  and  the  interest  you  have  shown  to  the  individ- 
ual soldier.  As  Congressman  Reyes  said,  we  are  going  to  miss  you. 

I  also  want  to  compliment  you,  while  I  am  on  the  good  side.  I 
happen  to  have  attended  last  Friday  night  a  presentation  by  the 
Mississippi  National  Guard,  about  three  or  four  hour  presen- 
tation— I  got  to  confess  I  didn't  stay  for  all  of  it — the  families — for 
the  families  and  troops  that  have  been  called  up  to  be  deployed. 
And  having  been  a  Member  of  Congress  for  the  last  major  call-up, 
I  was  really  impressed  that  almost  every  single  thing  that  the 
spouses  had  contacted  me  about  as  far  as  questions  last  time  was 
addressed  in  that  presentation.  So  I  would  hope  that  that  is  an 
Army-wide  policy.  I  thought  it  was  really  good,  and  I  could  see  in 


147 

the  faces  of  the  spouses  that  it  answered  their  questions,  and, 
therefore,  it  ought  to  be  an  Army-wide  pohcy. 

Going  back  to  the  call-up  of  the  Guardsmen  and  Reservists  and 
the  Gulf  War  Syndrome,  one  of  the  questions  that  was  repeatedly 
asked  shortly  after  the  Gulf  War,  are  these  problems  that  these 
folks  had  prior  to  the  Gulf  War  and  they  really  didn't  come  to  the 
surface  until  afterwards?  I  would  certainly  hope  that  you  were 
doing  your  best  to  take  a  good  look  at  the  health  care  situation  for 
each  Guardsman  and  Reservist  that  is  called  up  prior  to  deploy- 
ment. 

What  kind  of  caught  my  attention,  and  it  has  been  resolved,  but 
a  Guardswoman  from  my  district  with  lupus  was  called  up,  and  I 
was  surprised  how  long  it  took  for  her  to  be  determined 
nondeployable.  Again,  I  just  found  that  strange.  She  was  found 
nondeployable,  but  I  was  surprised  at  how  long  it  took. 

I  would  hope  we  can  prevent  some  of  the  problems  that  we  went 
through  last  time  by  having  a  good  baseline  study. 

As  far  as  Guard  and  Reserve  incentives,  I  know  that  there  is  a 
congressionally  mandated  study  going  on  right  now  looking  at  pos- 
sibly changing  the  retirement  age.  While  I  have  got  you  here,  I 
would  like  to  ask  you  to  consider  somehow  rewarding  those 
Guardsmen  and  Reservists  who  have  done  extended  periods  of  ac- 
tive duty.  Because  most  of  them  will  do  it  but  not  all  of  them.  So 
if  someone  has  done  a  Bosnia  rotation,  a  Sinai  rotation,  is  called 
up  for  this  war  or  the  previous  Gulf  War,  I  would  hope  that  you 
consider  reducing  the  retirement  age  on  a  year-for-year  basis  for 
each  year  they  did  duty  above  and  beyond  the  two  weeks  a  year 
and  one  weekend  a  month. 

I  would  also  hope  that  you  would  consider  reducing  the  retire- 
ment age  on  a  one-for-one  basis  for  each  year  that  a  person  goes 
beyond  20  years,  and  that  would  give  the  senior  petty  officer,  the 
senior  NCO,  the  0-5,  0-6  who  Mr.  Simmons  just  spoke  about,  one 
more  reason  to  stick  around  past  that  20-year  mark  if  he  knows 
that,  instead  of  retiring  at  60,  he  could  retire  at  59. 

The  third  thing  I  would  ask  you  to  consider  making  on  a  national 
basis  is  a  very  good  program  that  my  State  of  Mississippi  has,  and 
that  is  our  State  pays  the  way  for  our  National  Guardsmen  to  at- 
tend any  of  our  public  universities,  even  for  enlisted  people.  They 
graduate  from  high  school.  They  go  do  their  boot  camp,  start  col- 
lege next  summer.  They  do  the  advanced  infantry  training.  I  see 
it  as  a  two-fer.  I  think  it  is  a  phenomenal  way  for  a  kid  of  limited 
means  to  know  he  can  get  to  college,  and  I  think  you  get  some 
great  Guardsmen  out  of  it. 

Since  we  are  deploying  them  so  much  more  often,  I  think  the 
third  factor  that  I  see  as  a  plus  is,  as  a  rule,  college  kids  are  still 
single;  as  a  rule,  they  do  not  have  children.  So  you  don't  have  the 
additional  problem  of  what  becomes  of  the  family  or  the  additional 
problem  of  pulling  a  guy  out  of  a  fairly  high-paying  private-sector 
job  and  sending  him  to  Bosnia  for  a  year  and  his  family  trying  to 
struggle  on  an  E-2  or  E-3  salary.  So  I  think  it  is  a  good  program. 
I  know  it  has  been  a  great  program  for  the  State  of  Mississippi.  I 
would  hope  that,  as  we  continue  to  try  to  sweeten  the  pot  to  get 
people  interested  in  serving,  that  you  would  consider  that. 


148 

I  thank  you  for  your  service,  Secretary  White;  and,  General 
Shinseki,  you  have  done  just  an  outstanding  job.  We  are  really 
going  to  miss  you.  Don't  be  a  stranger  around  here  next  year. 

General  Shinseki.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Taylor.  If  you  could  comment. 

Secretary  White.  I  think  they  all  have  merit,  and  we  all  ought 
to  consider  it.  As  we  look  at  how  we  will  successfully  man  the  Re- 
serve components  going  forward,  the  pace  that  they  are  at  and  all 
the  rest  of  that  sort  of  thing,  I  think  we  have  to  look  at  precisely 
those  things.  We  have  to  look  at  retirement  age.  We  have  to  look 
at  incentives  to  keep  people  longer  and  the  educational  benefits.  So 
I  think  they  all  have  merit. 

We  will  take  those  under  advisement.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Schrock. 

Mr.  Schrock.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman;  and  thank  you,  Mr. 
Secretary  and  General,  for  being  here  today. 

Let  me  associate  myself  completely  with  the  remarks  the  chair- 
man made  at  the  beginning  of  this  hearing  about  you.  General 
Shinseki,  for  doing  a  great  job,  a  very  difficult  job  in  probably  one 
of  the  most  difficult  times  in  our  history. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  should  not  overlook  the  Secretary.  Although 
he  was  the  Secretary,  he  was  privileged  to  wear  the  green  uniform 
as  well  for  30  years,  40  years.  You  have  been  doing  it,  as  well. 

I  have  been  privileged  and  lucky  to  have  two  Army  officers  in  the 
district  I  represent  who  have  taught  me  more  about  the  Army  than 
I  ever  thought  I  would  know.  One  is  General  Buck  Kernan,  who, 
sadly  for  the  Army,  has  retired  and  I  think  is  playing  golf  every 
day  in  Pinehurst,  North  Carolina.  And  the  other  is  General  Bob 
Dale,  for  whom  I  have  the  greatest  respect,  who  is  one  of  the  most 
enthusiastic  human  beings  that  ever  lived  and  is  teaching  me  a  lot. 
I  appreciate  them  both  very  much. 

I  was  privileged  to  see  your  soldiers  in  Afghanistan  last  year, 
and  I  can  tell  you  that,  Reserve  or  active  duty,  they  love  what  they 
are  doing.  They  are  enthusiastic  about  it,  and  they  are  doing  ex- 
actly what  they  were  trained  to  do,  no  grumbling,  no  growling,  and 
we  were  allowed  to  talk  to  anybody  that  we  wanted  to  talk  to. 

Both  of  those  comments  you  should  consider  high  praise  from  a 
retired  Naval  officer.  I  mean  that  sincerely. 

I  have  two  questions.  I  don't  remember  which  one  of  you  made 
the  comment  that  this  war  on  terror  is  costing  you  $650  million, 
General,  $650  million  every  year. 

General  Shinseki.  Each  month. 

Mr.  Schrock.  That  is  even  worse,  each  month. 

A  few  years  back,  retired  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  Jim 
Loy  came  to  Congress  and  said,  guys,  enough  is  enough.  I  will  do 
whatever  you  want  to  do,  but  you  have  to  provide  the  people, 
equipment,  and  money  to  do  it  with.  I  am  wondering  at  what  point 
you  get  to  that  point. 

Number  two,  foreseeing  what  could  be  a  pretty  heavy  engage- 
ment in  Iraq,  do  you  have  enough  equipment  and  people  to  handle 
another  such  incident  somewhere  else  in  America  without  weaken- 
ing other  areas  where  you  are?  Somebody  was  saying  you  are 
spread  120  places  around  the  world.  Unbelievable.  Could  you  han- 


149 

die  two  major  conflicts  like  the  one  we  perceive  could  happen  if  the 
flag  goes  up  in  Iraq? 

General  Shinseki.  I  would  just  put  a  fine  point  on  what  it  is 
costing  us  with  this  current  war  on  terrorism.  It  is  $650  million  a 
month.  It  is  money  that  we  have  already  been  appropriated,  using 
out  of  the  fourth  quarter  to  pay  for  this.  It  raises  the  discussion 
of  our  interest  in  a  supplemental  and  early  to  be  able  to  take  care 
of  putting  back  in  place  the  programs  that  were  to  be  executed  in 
the  fourth  quarter. 

I  think  in  April  we  run  into  difficulty  with  just  the  operations 
and  maintenance  accounts,  and  in  July  personnel  accounts  are 
being  tapped  out. 

The  question  of  whether  or  not  we  can  handle  a  second  major 
combat  operation  I  think  all  of  us  have  had  to  look  at.  One,  obvi- 
ously, is  the  one  that  we  are  awaiting  decisions  on.  The  other  one 
would  obviously  be  in  northeast  Asia.  To  do  that,  we  would  have 
to  look  at  additional  mobilization.  But  it  is— the  second  major  oper- 
ation is  always  at  risk,  you  know.  The  risk  was  higher,  and  we 
have  described  it  that  way. 

I  think  it  is  fair  when  we  describe  how  we  looked  at  responsibil- 
ities—and I  think  both  Secretary  White  and,  I  believe,  Secretary 
Rumsfeld  and  Chairman  Myers  talked  about  our  strategy  of  One- 
Four-Two-One  as  being  the  construct  around  which  we  describe  our 
need  for  forces.  One  being  homeland  defense,  and  all  of  us  under- 
stand why  that  is  one  and  why  that  is  at  the  top.  Four  was  de- 
signed around  four  critical  areas  of  the  world — northeast  Asia, 
southeast  Asia,  southwest  Asia,  and  then  back  into  Europe.  And 
out  of  those  four  critical  areas  we  expected  the  two  would  be  poten- 
tially major  combat  operations  and  one  of  them  being  a  large  com- 
bat go  to  war.  And  the  other  crises  would  be  what  we  called  a 
swiftly-defeat-the-efforts-of.  So  that  is  how  those  two  major  combat 
operations  shook  out. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  there  may  be,  and  I  would  argue, 
a  section  swiftly-defeat-the-efforts-of,  and  this  is  this  thing  called 
the  Global  War  on  Terrorism.  It  will  take  a  lot  of  energy  and  re- 
sources and  manpower  to  deal  with  that  fight  to  bring  that  to  the 
kind  of  resolution  we  think  is  important.  But  that  is  going  on  in 
Afghanistan  primarily  but  lots  of  other  places,  and  that  goes  be- 
yond the  southwest  Asia-northeast  Asia  primary  focus.  So  that 
adds  to  both  the  personnel  and  the  resource  requirements  that 
come  back  to  this  discussion  of  cash  flow  and  supplemental. 

Secretary  White.  I  might  add  just  one  thing;  that  when  we  say 
$650  million  a  month,  that  we  are  cash  flowing  from  the  back  of 
the  area  to  the  front  of  the  area  to  support  the  Global  War  on  Ter- 
rorism. What  we  are  talking  about  in  preparation  for  whatever  the 
President  decides  to  do  with  Iraq  is  in  addition  to  that.  That  is  the 
going  state  of  affairs:  Global  War  on  Terrorism,  30,000  Reserve 
Component  mobilized-basically  our  position  we  started  the  year  out 
with.  And  we  have  been— the  build-up  that  is  currently  going  on 
is  in  addition  to  that. 

Mr.  SCHROCK.  Thank  you.  Thank  you  for  your  comments. 
I  guess  my  prayer  is  for  you  and  for  all  the  people  in  uniform 
is  that  the  Iraqi  people  will  take  care  of  this  for  us.  Let's  just  hope 


150 

that  is  the  case.  But,  if  not,  I  have  confidence  that  your  folks  will 
handle  it  well  and  handle  it  quick.  Thanks. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

The  Chair  would  exercise  its  prerogative  just  to  ask  a  follow-up 
that  was  generated  by  this  exchange;  and  that  is  that.  General 
Shinseki,  you  have  described  the  priority  areas  where  we  see  either 
an  ongoing  mission  or  a  mission  which  may  be  imminent.  We  main- 
tain the  Army  in  great  strength.  That  was  the  bulk  of  the  300,000 
Americans  deployed  in  Europe  during  the  days  of  the  Warsaw  Pact 
to  offset  massive  Warsaw  Pact  armor  and  other  conventional  capa- 
bility right  across  the  line.  What  is  the  mission  in  Germany,  the 
71,400  Army  personnel  that  are  there  today? 

General  Shinseki.  Well,  the 

The  Chairman.  Or,  excuse  me,  it  is  about  55,000  personnel  but 
the  bulk  of  the  71,000  Americans. 

General  Shinseki  [continuing].  The  mission  there  is  to  be  again 
partners  with  NATO,  the  outreach  to  new  NATO  nations  that  have 
joined;  and  part  of  the  training  responsibility,  the 
professionalization  with  that,  is  a  day-to-day  responsibility.  But 
NATO — but  Europe  is  an  ocean  closer  and  the  forces  there  I  think 
you  will  find  them  being  used  in  a  variety  of  ways,  both  in  Bos- 
nia— that  is  what  the  immediate  response  was — and  you  will  see 
elements  of  European  forces  in  whatever  happens. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  is  today  the  mission  of  protecting 
Germany,  in  fact,  and  other  NATO  nations  against  this  massive 
Warsaw  Pact  array  of  conventional  forces  is  no  longer  there,  is  it? 

General  Shinseki.  We  were  there,  217,000,  at  one  point.  Now  we 
are  down  significantly  downsized  to  meet  a  variety  of  requirements 
that  are  tied  to  our  NATO  agreements.  I  think  it  is  an  appropriate 
time  to  take  a  good  look  at  what  the  posture  is. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  ask  what  will  NATO  be  in  the  years  ahead. 
I  think  that  there  will  be  a  NATO.  I  think  we  will  still  want  to  be 
associated  with  it.  It  has  been  a  successful  alliance.  Whether  it  is 
the  way  it  is  today — it  isn't  today  the  way  it  was  just  5  years  ago, 
19  members  and  just  added  to  by  another  group  of  7.  I  think  that 
alliance  will  be  something  that  we  will  continue  to  engage  with.  So 
what  the  footprint  is  and  exactly  where  it  is  I  think  are  valid  ques- 
tions to  address. 

The  Chairman.  You  experienced  several  tours  in  the  Germany 
theater. 

General  SHINSEKI.  I  have,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  fairly  expensive  for  our  military  families? 
Because  part  of  the  argument  that  is  percolating  now  with  respect 
to  replacing  the  permanent  stationing  of  troops  in  Europe  and  par- 
ticularly in  Germany  with  expeditionary  type  forces  that  don't 
bring  the  family,  the  families  and  all  of  the  structure,  the  schools, 
the  hospitals,  the  commissaries  that  are  attendant  to  large  military 
basing,  the  idea  is  that  you  could  save  a  substantial  amount  of 
money  by  moving  toward  that  type  of  a  rotation,  an  expeditionary 
basing,  rather  than  a  permanent  force  basing. 

Secretary  White.  I  agree  with  you.  I  spent  six  years  in  Germany. 
The  Chief  spent — I  was  at  Fulda  Gap.  The  Chief  was  down  the 
road  at  Schweinfurt. 

The  Chairman.  You  protected  it  well. 


151 

Secretary  White.  But  if  you  look  at  how  that  Army  operates 
today,  it  is  enormously  different  than  when  we  were  there.  We 
might  live  in  the  old  West  German  states  but  work  m  the  new 
states.  Because  the  training  opportunities  in  Poland  and  Hungary 
and  other  places,  the  stuff  we  can  do  there  is  a  lot  better  than  it 
is  in— so  for  that  dimension  for  what  the  Chief  of  Staff  talked 
about,  I  think  it  is  time  to  reconsider  it  with  a  blank  sheet  of  paper 
and  really  see  how  we  want  to  be  postured  post  the  current  envi- 
ronment. . 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  a  lot  less  expensive  to  live  m  Poland  m 
terms — if  we  should  have  military  personnel  based  in  Poland,  as 
opposed  to  the  German  economy? 

Secretary  White.  If  you  set  it  up  on  a  brigade  rotation  as  op- 
posed to— which  is  what  the  SACEUR  is  talking  about,  what  we 
have  been  talking  about  for  the  past  six  or  nine  months.  So  that 
you  would  not  have  dependents  there.  You  would  home  base  the 
dependents  in  the  United  States  in  our  installation  structure  there. 
Then  you  would  rotate  the  brigades  on  an  180-day  basis,  which 
would  be  a  lot  cheaper. 

General  Shinseki.  I  would  say  that  if  the  comparison  was  be- 
tween Germany  and  Poland,  I  think  there  is  an  identifiable  cost 
differential.  If  we  go  on  a  rotational  basis  overseas,  wherever  we 
position   families   the   requirements   will   still   be   there— housing, 
schools;  and  those  cost  factors  ought  to  be  included  in  the  analysis. 
The  Chairman.  Okay.  Ms.  Bordallo,  excuse  me  for  digressing  and 
taking  time,  but  you  are  now  recognized. 
Ms.  Bordallo.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  General,  for  appearing  before  the  com- 
mittee. 

I  would  like  to  just  focus  a  little  more  on  the  Pacific  area.  I  rep- 
resent Guam,  and  I  would  like  to— I  hope  that  the  Army  would  in- 
crease its  activity  over  in  Guam.  We  have  the  other  services  very 
well  represented.  But  today  I  just— I  am  curious  about— you  have 
a  major  base  in  Kwajalein,  is  that  correct? 
Secretary  White.  Yes. 

Ms.  Bordallo.  I  did  send  one  of  my  staff  recently  on  a  trip  to 
Kwajalein,  and  he  came  back  and  reported  that  Colonel  Brown,  he 
is  the  commander  of  Kwajalein  there,  is  doing  a  very  excellent  job 
of  supporting  the  Nation's  missile  defense  testing  and  space  pro- 
gram. 

Now  these  programs  require  properly  maintained  installations, 
and  I  understand  that  some  of  the  work  to  maintain  the  infrastruc- 
ture of  the  island  is  done  by  a  Guam  company  called  Dick  Pacific. 
I  believe  there  is  funding  in  the  2004  military  construction 
(MILCON)  budget  for  $9.4  million  for  vehicle  maintenance  and  re- 
pair facility.  Now  I  don't  know— I  am  sure  that  money  isn't  just  for 
Kwajalein.  But  I  would  like  to  ask  you.  General,  to  relate  to  the 
committee  what  are  the  Army's  plan  for  the  future  of  this  crucial 
Army  base  and  do  you  have  any  plans  in  the  future  for  establishing 
more  activity  on  the  Island  of  Guam?  I  am  particularly  interested 
because  of  the  situation  in  North  Korea,  and  we  would  like  to  see 
increased  military  activity  on  our  island. 

General  Shinseki.  Okay.  Congresswoman,  I  don't  have  specific 
details  about,  I  think,  what  you  have  asked;  and  that  is,  are  we 


152 

planning  to  increase  our  presence  there  in  Guam  in  Army  uni- 
forms. But,  as  you  know,  we  do  have  a  presence  in  Guam  of  Army 
units.  Modest  but  pretty  darn  good  soldiers  there. 

Ms.  BORDALLO.  You  have  a  strong  National  Guard. 

General  Shinseki.  Yes,  we  do.  In  fact,  you  saw  them  go  into  ac- 
tion after  the  recent  storm  in  which  a  lot  of  the  recovery  was  done 
by  those  soldiers.  So  there  is  no  question  about  the  value  of  our  sol- 
diers wherever  they  serve.  I  just  can't  answer  for  you  right  now 
that  there  is  a  definite  plan  that  we  will  increase  the  size  of  that 
contingent. 

Ms.  BORDALLO.  You  know,  I  am  just  very  concerned  about  this 
global  terrorism.  We  are  just  three  short  hours  away  from  Korea, 
and  I  am  concerned  about  it.  I  just  thought  maybe  if  you  were 
thinking  of  increasing  any  activity  that  you  would  remember 
Guam. 

General  Shinseki.  We  will  do  that. 

Secretary  White.  Of  course,  Kwajalein  is  square  in  the  middle 
of  ballistic  missile  testing.  As  the  intensity  of  that  program  goes 
up,  you  will  have  very  high  activity  level  there,  I  would  think. 

Ms.  BORDALLO.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentlelady,  and  excuse  me  for  mis- 
pronouncing your  name.  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Hayes. 

Mr.  Hayes.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

General  Shinseki  and  Secretary  White,  thank  you  for  being  here. 
Two  comments  and  two  questions. 

Number  one,  I  take  offense  to  statements  made  by  the  minority 
leader  in  the  other  body  that  we  are  not  actively  pursuing  Osama 
bin  Laden.  The  last  time  I  checked,  the  82nd  Airborne  and  other 
fine  soldiers  every  day  in  8,000  foot  plus  terrain  going  hand  to 
hand  and  taking  fire  are  pursuing  very  actively  and  effectively  that 
goal.  So  I  wanted  to  make  that  comment. 

Mr.  Hayes.  And,  along  the  same  line,  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you 
for  your  comments  about  working  with  some  of  the  former  Eastern 
Bloc  countries  who  seem  to  be  much  more  enthusiastic  about  keep- 
ing NATO  together,  pursuing  the  proper  missions  that  we  have 
over  there.  I  think  that  is  a  great  suggestion. 

Two  questions  for  you.  In  the  budget,  and  there  will  be  a  lot  of 
adjustments,  Impact  Aid  was  severely  cut.  That  affects  education 
at  Ft.  Bragg  and  other  military  posts  around  the  country.  As  we 
move  forward  with  RCI,  Residential  Community  Initiative,  we  are 
doing  great  things  for  the  soldiers,  part  of  what  we  just  kind  of 
slightly  missed  is  how  which  are  going  to  fund  the  Department  of 
Defense  Education  Activity  (DoDEA)  schools. 

What  are  your  thoughts,  both  you  and  the  Secretary,  on  how  we 
are  going  to  fill  in  that  gap  and  take  care  of  that  important  edu- 
cation component? 

General  Shinseki.  Let  me  just  say,  Congressman  Hayes,  that 
education  has  always  been  a  very  top  priority  for  not  just  the 
Army,  but  for  soldiers.  This  is  one  of  those  things  they  consistently 
bring  up  to  us. 

Congressman  Thornberry's  question  about  are  youngsters  able  to 
talk  to  the  leadership.  Every  year,  you  know,  we  have  an  Army 
family  action  program  conference  here  in  which  installation  rep- 


153 

resentatives  come  to  Washington,  visit  with  us  there  concerning 
priorities.  And  education  always  comes  up  at  the  very  top. 

Our  Department  of  Defense  schools  on  our  installations  are  a 
major  part  of  that  program.  Impact  Aid  down  in  the  local  school 
systems  is  a  major  part  of  that.  I  just  discovered  the  fact  that  Im- 
pact Aid  was  reduced  significantly,  and  so  we  are  into  trying  to  un- 
derstand what  that  means. 

But,  we  are  hearing  from  a  number  of  our  representatives  about 
the  irnpact  potentially  to  their  school  districts  as  well  as  to  what 
it  means  for  our  service  member  students.  I  will  give  you  a  better 
answer  once  we  get  into  it.  I  just  know  the  impact  will  be  signifi- 
cant. 

We  are  also  interested  in  offering  the  opportunity  for  our  sol- 
diers, wherever  they  serve,  education  being  important,  to  seek  in- 
state tuition  opportunities  for  those  locations  where  we  have  a  sig- 
nificant soldier  population.  And  this  is  always  a  tough  one  to  work. 
But,  we  have  been  successful  in  some  areas,  and  so  pursuing  even 
continuing  education  opportunities  for  soldiers  and  their  families  in 
the  long  run  is  benefit  added.  We  will  continue  to  work  these.  But 
I  will  get  back  to  you  on  Impact  Aid,  and  what  that  means  to — 
certainly  to  Ft.  Bragg,  but  to  some  of  our  other  school  districts,  as 
well. 

Mr.  Hayes.  Thanks  for  the  comment.  And  Impact  Aid  is  a  vital 
piece.  It  is  separate  and  together  with  the  Residential  Community 
Initiative  (RCI).  As  we  fill  that  housing,  we  are  in  the  middle  of 
the  comprehensive  development  plan,  we  need  to  scratch  around 
and  see  how  we  are  going  to  fund  that  component. 

Secretary  White.  Right.  We  are  a  married  Army.  And  here  we 
go  at  Ft.  Bragg,  we  are  going  to  have  a  great  RCI  program,  you 
and  I  have  talked  about  that.  It  is  one  of  the  best  things  we  are 
doing.  And  if  we  don't  tend  to  the  education  side  of  it,  we  are  not 
going  to  get  the  measure  we  want.  So  you  are  absolutely  right. 

Mr.  Hayes.  Now,  just  let  us  know  what  you  need  from  us,  and 
we  will  be  happy  to  aggressively  pursue  it. 

The  other  area  is  encroachment.  We  are  looking  at  some  very 
positive  relationships,  the  Nature  Conservancy  and  other  similar 
groups  that  are  good  for  the  environment,  good  for  conservation 
and  good  for  the  troops. 

Just  give  us  an  update  on  some  of  the  problems  that  you  are  fac- 
ing because  of  encroachment  and  comment  on  how  well,  or  what 
the  potential  is  there  and  how  we  can  work  to  realize  that  as  a  real 
aid  to  our  forces? 

Secretary  White.  Well,  in  the  range  restoration  preservation  ini- 
tiative that  we  started  with  last  year,  that  I  think  has  been  resub- 
mitted this  year,  what  it  basically— the  sum  total  of  all  of  that  is 
that  we  have  a  tradition  in  the  military,  I  think,  of  taking  care  of 
our  installations  and  finding  ways  to  accommodate  the  specifics  of, 
say,  the  red-cockaded  woodpecker  and  its  habitat  in  the  Ft.  Bragg 
area. 

The  Corps  Commander  there  probably  knows  as  much  about  that 
bird  and  its  habitat  as  a  naturalist  does.  So  it  is  not  a  matter,  as 
we  seek  relief  from  the  Migratory  Bird  Act  or  certain  provision  of 
the  Endangered  Species  Act,  that  we  want  to  abuse  the  environ- 
ment, we  have  to  have  a  reasonable  balance  here,  so  we  can  con- 


154 

tinue  to  train.  I  think  that  is  the  thrust  of  the  initiatives  that  have 
been  resubmitted. 

And  hopefully  we  can  get  favorable  resolution.  Because  if  not, 
and  if  particularly  the  way  litigation  has  come  out  in  regard  to 
these  acts,  forces  us  to  an  extreme  interpretation  of  them  on  mili- 
tary installations.  Training  in  a  lot  of  cases  will  be  severely  im- 
pacted. 

General  Shinseki.  Encroachment  is  a  large  part  of  our  discus- 
sions, because  for  our  formations  we  have  to  train.  Wherever  we 
are,  we  have  to  train  or  we  miss  the  obligation  to  prepare  our  for- 
mations before  they  go  off  and  do  the  tough  missions.  Some  of  that 
encroachment  is  environmental,  some  of  it  is  other  encroachments, 
whether  it  is  farming  land  that  creeps  up,  or  the  construction  of 
housing  areas  that  become,  over  time,  of  interest.  So  it  is  sort  of 
a  multifaceted  discussion. 

I  think  we  engage  in  all  of  them.  To  include  the  one  that  some 
would  say  is  the  most  emotional,  which  is  the  environment,  we 
have,  over  time,  engaged  and  been  able  to  demonstrate  that  we  are 
also  stewards  of  the  environment.  And  to  the  degree  that  we  can 
adjust  or  invest,  we  do  so.  At  some  point,  if  there  is  a  division 
about  with  whether  or  not  this  training  must  go  on,  we  have  had 
pretty  good  support  on  conducting  the  training  and  not  having 
what  we  encountered  about  ten  years  ago,  which  was  court-im- 
posed injunctions  and  the  stopping  of  training  at  places  like  Bragg 
and  Benning  and  Ft.  Polk.  We  have  worked  through  that.  But, 
there  is  additional  work  to  be  done  here. 

Mr.  Hayes.  I  thank  you  for  comments.  Chairman  Hunter  has  a 
few  little  problems  with  riding  buses  and  things  in  his  district,  as 
well.  But  I  think  it  is  important  to  remind  the  public  that  the 
Army  in  particular,  the  military  in  general,  has  an  outstanding 
record  and  is  not  often  recognized  enough  as  the  best  land  man- 
agers around. 

The  naturalists  are  important,  realists  are  important.  I  think  the 
military  has  done  a  good  job  of  marrying  these  concepts  together 
and  meeting  everybody's  needs,  but  first  and  foremost,  securing  the 
country.  Thank  you  again. 

General  Shinseki.  Sir,  if  it  comes  out,  the  final  bottom  line  here 
is  if  we  can't  train,  we  have  to  go  someplace  where  we  can. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  And  I  recognize  the  dis- 
tinguished gentleman,  Mr.  Cooper. 

Mr.  Cooper.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  questions  first  re- 
garding Impact  Aid  and  second  overseas  Base  Realignment  and 
Closure  (BRAC). 

It  doesn't  sound  to  me  as  if  the  administration  is  speaking  with 
one  voice  on  Impact  Aid.  I  got  the  impression  that  you  all  thought 
it  was  a  pretty  important  program.  I  am  on  the  Budget  Committee, 
as  well.  And  we  received  testimony  last  week  from  Director  Dan- 
iels, who  implied  heavily  that  Impact  Aid  was  not  a  very  good  pro- 
gram, that  he  didn't  mind  the  cuts  that  the  budget  is  putting  on 
Impact  Aid. 

Congressman  Chet  Edwards  from  Texas  pointed  out  yesterday  on 
the  floor  that  his  folks  at  Ft.  Hood,  Texas,  right  while  they  are 
being  deployed,  are  facing  cuts  in  Impact  Aid  back  home.  I  am  sure 
that  is  going  on  all  over.  So  I  hope  the  administration  can  coordi- 


155 

nate  its  mission  on  Impact  Aid,  speak  with  one  voice,  either  it  is 
a  good  program  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  a  good  program,  it  should  be 
adequately  funded.  Because  our  servicemen  and  women  should  not 
face  this  threat  to  their  own  kids'  education  back  home  right  as 
they  are  being  deployed. 

Second,  on  overseas  BRAC.  Can't  help  but  note  from  your  charts 
here  that  Germany  and  France  have,  by  far,  more  U.S.  bases  than 
any  other  European  countries.  Germany,  of  course,  leads  the  pack 
with  591.  France  is  second  with  a  mere  21. 

Can  you  tell  me  how  many  of  the  German  bases  are,  in  fact,  nec- 
essary for  the  U.S.  MiHtary  in  our  defense? 

General  Shinseki.  Well,  I  think  we  can  speak  to  the  Army  bases, 
of  which  there  are  several.  What  we  have  left  in  Germany  today 
is  a  theater  headquarters,  a  Corps,  a  Fifth  Corps,  with  a  set  of 
units  that  round  out  a  Corps,  and  two  divisions  of  two  brigades 
each.  Significantly  downsized  and  focused  on  operations  that  are 
not  just  focused  on  Germany,  but  out  of  sector. 

These  were  the  forces  that  went  immediately  to  the  Balkans 
when,  five  years  ago,  that  requirement  stood  up.  These  are  forces 
that  potentially  will  be  employed  elsewhere  in  the  NATO  region, 
which  goes  not  just  to  NATO  proper,  but  includes  the  operations 
that  we  are  standing  by  for. 

Specifically,  these  bases  in— where  they  are  currently  located  m 
Germany,  are  a  carryover  from  our  years  of  having  been  there,  Sec- 
retary White  and  I.  And  as  we  have  indicated  earlier,  it  is  probably 
an  appropriate  time  to  have  this  discussion  about  what  our  foot- 
print over  there  ought  to  be  at  a  time  when  there  is  tremendous 
interest  in  professionalizing  armies  that  used  to  be  part  of  the 
former  Eastern  Europe  formation. 

Mr.  Cooper.  About  how  many  of  the  591  U.S.  bases  would  be 
Army  bases? 

General  Shinseki.  May  I  get  back  to  you  for  the  record  on  that, 
to  give  you  exactly  that  number. 

[The  information  referred  to  can  be  found  in  the  Appendix  begin- 
ning on  page  233.] 

Mr.  Cooper.  Another  question.  How  about  accelerating  the 
BRAC  process  just  for  German  bases  right  now?  Wouldn't  that  be 
a  good  thing  to  do  in  light  of  the  hardship  that  is  expected  all  over 
this  country  when  the  BRAC  round  resumes  with  U.S.  bases. 
Would  you  object  to  going  ahead  and  accelerating  that  process? 

Secretary  White.  Well,  I  think  the  first  thing  that  has  to  go  in 
Germany  and  in  Europe  in  general  is,  with  our  work  with  the 
combattant  commander  and  with  Secretary  Rumsfeld's  staff  is  fig- 
ure out  what  the  force  posture  is  going  to  be  there. 

And  then,  and  that  needs  to  be  sorted  out  fairly  rapidly.  Because, 
the  structure  will  be  returning.  And  then,  based  upon  that  answer, 
what  the  appropriate  installation  structure  is  to  support  it  and  get 
on  with  it. 

And,  you  know,  he  talked  about  it  while  he  was  here  in  front  of 
the  committee.  And  so  I  think  you  will  see  that  pursued  with  ur- 
gency. 

Mr.  Cooper.  Good,  because  considering  the  time  value  of  money, 
the  fact  that  we  may  be  able  to  close  what  2-  or  300  bases  here 
in  Germany,  I  think  that  would  be  important  for  Americans  to  see 


156 

that  we  are  doing  our  base  closures  overseas  first,  before  we  im- 
peril domestic  facilities. 

Just  for  the  record,  I  have  no  facilities  in  my  district,  so  I  am 
not  worried  about  myself.  But  we  need  to  take  care  of  our  overseas 
business  first. 

General  Shinseki.  Just  to  put  a  final  point  on  this,  Congress- 
man. I  think  that  is  an  appropriate  question.  If  you  look  at  where 
we  have  closed  bases  over  the  last  ten  years,  you  will  see  that  we 
have  very  much  looked  at  what  you  are  asking  us  to  look  at  here. 
And  that  is,  see  where  we  could  take  that  downsizing  overseas  be- 
fore we  affected  our  bases  here  in  the  States. 

Mr.  Cooper.  With  all  due  respect  to  the  chief,  though,  591  bases 
in  one  country  is  an  extraordinary  number.  I  bet  most  Americans, 
even  those  who  served  in  Germany,  would  be  surprised  at  that 
total.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  And  I  would  inform  the 
gentleman  and  the  committee  that  the  Chair  has  announced  that 
we  are  going  to  have  a  hearing,  and  perhaps  a  series  of  hearings, 
on  the  potential  realignment  of  American  forces  in  Europe,  and  ob- 
viously that  is  with  a  focus  on  Germany,  because  some  71,400  of 
the  troops  of  American  personnel  who  are  in — of  100,000  or  so 
American  personnel  in  Europe,  some  71,400  are  in  Germany.  The 
vast  preponderance.  About  55,500  of  those  troops  are  Army  troops. 

General  Shinseki.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  So  we  know  this  is  going  to  involve  you  folks 
fairly  extensively,  and  we  have  got  that  hearing  set  for  the  week 
of  the  24th. 

The  gentleman,  Mr.  Franks,  from  Arizona. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  on  that  point?  I  think  it 
is  a  very  appropriate  idea  to  have  a  hearing  on  this  subject.  And 
I  might  add  that  as  I  ate  breakfast  this  morning,  I  had  a  news- 
paper in  my  hand,  and  one  of  the  headlines  right  on  the  front  page 
was  that  there  apparently  are  a  significant  number  of — let  me  put 
it  this  way:  Apparently  there  is  a  significant  feeling  within  the  cur- 
rent government  in  Germany  that  maybe  we  have  too  much  pres- 
ence there. 

And  I  couldn't  help  but  notice  that,  because  of  the  current  events 
and  recent  news  that  we  have  been  privy  to  almost  every  day,  of 
the  level  of  cooperation  that  we  are  receiving  from  the  current  Ger- 
man government.  And  so,  I  think  political — international  political 
considerations  are  at  play  here,  as  well.  And  I  think  that  we  should 
make  that  clear. 

The  Chairman.  The  gentleman  makes  a  good  point.  And  one 
point,  of  course,  to  be  made,  is  that  there  is  a  certain  dimension 
of  what  you  would  call  community  support,  meaning  that  when  the 
troops  move  out  or  are  deployed,  their  families  are  left  in  that  com- 
munity. If  you  deploy  from  an  American  community,  whether  it  is 
Ft.  Dix  or  Camp  Pendleton,  you  have  a  community  support  struc- 
ture of  community  organizations,  relatives,  friends,  which  provides 
some  modicum  of  comfort  for  the  family. 

If  you  are  in  a  base  in  which  the  family  members,  upon  exiting 
the  base  into  the  general  community,  are  confronted  with  anti- 
American  demonstrations,  that  tends  to  put  a  good  deal  of  stress 
into  that  community  of  American  dependents. 


157 

And  I  think  that  is— although  that  is  not  a  predominant  factor 
in  terms  of  where  we  should  be  stationed,  it  is  certainly  a  relevant 
factor,  and  one  we  should  look  at.  So  I  thank  the  gentleman.  And 
I  look  forward  to  good  attendance  by  the  committee  at  these  impor- 
tant hearings. 

Now  I  would  turn  to  the  gentleman  from  Arizona,  the  distm- 
guished  gentleman,  Mr.  Franks,  who  is  stepping  into  the  very  large 
shoes  of  our  retiring  chairman.  Bob  Stump.  Thank  you  for  being 
with  us,  and  I  think  you  have  got  the  last  shot  here. 

Mr.  Franks.  Well,  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Secretary,  General,  I  wanted  just  to  echo  the  appreciation  of 
everyone  here  on  the  committee  for  your  presence  here,  those  who 
attend  you. 

I  think  all  Americans  recognizing  intrinsically  that  it  is  the  sol- 
dier and  not  the  politician  that  pays  the  price  and  bears  the  burden 
for  freedom.  And  it  must  be  a  tremendous  source  of  satisfaction  to 
each  of  you  to  know  that  coming  generations  and  Americans  that 
are  living  today  will  enjoy  a  greater  measure  of  freedom  because 
of  what  you  have  done  and  what  you  continue  to  do. 

And  with  that  in  mind.  General,  I  know  the  last  four  years  must 
have  gone  very  quickly  for  you.  And  your  successor  will  face  some 
pretty  significant  challenges.  And  if  you  were  to  give  him  one  over- 
riding principle  or  piece  of  advice  that  was  essentially  your  parting 
admonition  or  just  piece  of  advice  for  him,  what  would  that  be  and 
what  insight  could  the  committee  gain  from  that,  sir? 

General  Shinseki.  Well,  Congressman,  whoever  sits  here  at  the 
next  hearing  is  going  to  be  a  great  soldier  with  a  great  set  of  cre- 
dentials gained  over,  much  as  I  have  gained  mine,  over  a  number 
of  years.  And  I  think  what  was  helpful  to  me,  and  I  won't  offer  it 
to  him,  because  I  think  that  he  will  come  to  his  own  conclusions. 
I  have  tried  to  be  the  soldier's  spokesman  in  this  audience,  to  en- 
sure that  the  needs  of  our  soldiers  and  our  civilians  and  their  fami- 
lies was  well  represented  to  establish  the  priorities  on  how  we 
looked  after  their  needs. 

And  then,  where  we  weren't  able  to  do  that,  to  make  that  clear 
to  this  committee  and  seek  your  support  and  assistance.  We  can 
describe  the  needs  in  a  variety  of  ways,  programmatically.  But 
what  makes  greater  sense  in  here  is  to  ensure  that  those  who 
signed  up  to  carry  the  difficult  missions  we  always  assigned  to 
them,  and  it  is  always  at  risk,  that  we  have  done  our  very  best  to 
take  care  of  their  needs. 

Mr.  Franks.  Well,  thank  you,  sir,  and  thank  all  of  you  for  what 
you  mean  to  America.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  just  yield  back  the 
balance  of  my  time. 

Mr.  McHUGH.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  And  the  gentleman  from 
Hawaii,  Mr.  Abercrombie. 
Mr.  Abercrombie.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 
General  Shinseki,  perhaps  it  is  entirely  coincidental,  obviously, 
that  I  am  the  last  person  to  be  asking  questions  or  making  coni- 
ments  this  morning.  But,  as  your  friend  and  neighbor  from  Hawaii, 
I  just  want  to  express  as  well  my  high  personal  regard  and  affec- 
tion for  you  and  your  family,  and  to  bring  you,  I  am  sure,  on  behalf 
of  your  fellow  citizens  in  Hawaii,  the  same  high  regard  and  affec- 
tion and  express  to  you  our  profound  gratitude  to  your  service  to 


158 

the  Nation.  And  our  delight  and  pleasure  in  knowing  that  you  are 
a  son  of  Hawaii. 

General  Shinseki.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Another,  just  a  further  comment  to  both  to 
you  and  to  Secretary  White,  not  to  you  specifically,  but  Mr.  Chair- 
man, for  purposes  of  perspective,  I  was  fortunate  to  be  in  the — with 
the  group  of  Members  who  were  in  Munich  this  past  weekend  at 
the  security  conference,  and  at  the  briefing  we  had  with  General 
Jones. 

I  really  want  to  express  and  make  certain  that  it  is  understood, 
and  I  am  assuming  that  you  will  agree,  any  changes  we  are  going 
to  make  or  are  contemplating  making  with  respect  to  the  place- 
ment of  forces  in  Europe  has  nothing  whatsoever  to  do  with  policy 
differences  that  may  or  may  not  exist,  or  particular  positions  of  the 
moment  politically  that  may  or  may  not  exist. 

Every  decision  that  is  being  or — I  won't  say  every  decision,  but 
every  recommendation  we  were  asked  to  consider  by  General  Jones 
in  the  macro  sense,  and  however  they  manifest  themselves  in  ac- 
tual troop  deployments  or  base  activities  have — do  you  both  not 
agree,  everything  and  only  to  do  with  decisions  about  what  are  in 
the  strategic  interests  of  the  Nation  and  the  military  and  have 
nothing  to  do  with  particular  political  fashion  of  the  moment? 

Secretary  White.  I  agree  with  that. 

General  Shinseki.  I  agree  with  that. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Okay.  Because,  I  am  afraid,  unfortunately,  al- 
ready in  the  press  there  is  a  little  bit  of  a  tendency  to  start  taking 
particular  political  circumstances  and  commentary  back  and  forth, 
as  if  this  was  something  that  just  popped  into  our  heads  recently 
and  is  being  put  forward  as  a  kind  of — not  revenge  exactly — but  a 
kind  of,  "my  feelings  were  hurt,  therefore  I  am  going  to  show  you," 
which  has  nothing  to  do  with  what  we  are  contemplating,  correct? 

Secretary  White.  Correct. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  That  is  a  fair  summary? 

Secretary  WHITE.  Yes.  I  am  sure  the  Sec  here  said  that  when  he 
talked  to  you. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Of  course  he  did.  There  was  not  a  word  said 
with  respect  to  particular  difficulties  or  contentious  issues  that 
were  being  raised  right  now.  This  has  to  do  with  how  do  we  project 
the  forces  of  this  Nation  in  an  effective  manner  within  the  NATO 
context  and  within  the  overall  strategic  interests  of  the  country. 

Secretary  WHITE.  Agreed. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  that  is  im- 
portant to  have  on  the  record.  We  are  not  engaged  in  these  hear- 
ings on  something  that  is  involved  with  anything  other  than  what 
is  the  best  interests  of  this  Nation  with  respect  to  what  this  com- 
mittee's jurisdiction  is. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  his  comments.  Let  me 
just  add,  though,  that  when  I  made  my  announcement  that  we  are 
having  hearings  on  this,  I  did  point  out  that  I  had  talked  to  Sec 
here  before  he  went  over,  and  he  talked  about  the  new,  the  expedi- 
tionary concept  that  also  manifests  this  ability  to  move,  and  in  that 
manner  is  also  manifest  in  the  Quadrennial  Defense  Review 
(QDR).  And  so  it  is  something  that  was  discussed  earlier. 


159 

However,  I  would  just  say  one  thing  to  the  gentleman.  When  you 
are  making  a  determination  of  where  you  are  basing,  there  are  a 
number  of  considerations.  One  consideration  is  cost,  and  you  now 
have  a  number  of  other  nations  in  Europe  which  may  or  may  not 
offer  a  lower  cost  of  living,  especially  to  American  families  that 
have  to  live  on  the  economy,  and  lower  cost  of  basing. 

And  last  there  is— and  everybody  who  has  gone  through  a  base 
closing  in  their  community  knows  this— there  is  a  relevance  as  to 
how  the  particular  community  in  which  American  uniformed  per- 
sonnel are  based  are  treated.  And  that  is,  of  course — while  that  is 
not  the  predominant  issue,  the  predominant  issue  is  number  one, 
mission,  as  the  gentleman  correctly  stated;  and  cost  also  is  a  sec- 
ondary consideration,  but  nonetheless  a  strong  consideration;  but 
also,  the  treatment  of  the  people  that  live  in  that  particular  com- 
munity by  the  community,  whether  it  is  based  in  the  United  States 
or  based  overseas.  While  it  is  not  controlling,  it  is  relevant,  and  is 
certainly  a  factor  to  be  considered. 

So  if  you  have  all  things  being  equal,  and  you  didn't  have  a  stra- 
tegic requirement,  and  the  strategic  requirement  of  defending  the 
Fulda  Gap  that  was  the  driving— what  was  the  basis  of  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  American  troops  being  based  in  Germany, 
there  is  not  a  single  tank  now  on  the  other  side  of  that  gap  braced 
for  invasion.  With  that  going  away,  you  move  to  the  other  consider- 
ations for  basing;  that  is,  whether  you  have  a  hub  for  deployment, 
which  that  place  is,  and.  General  Shinseki  mentioned  the  Balkans 
deployments  that  came  from  that  location.  Also,  you  look  at  your 
investment,  you  look  at  what  it  could  cost  to  replicate  it  elsewhere, 
but  you  make  those  match-ups.  And  one  relevant  factor  is  the  de- 
sire of  that  particular  community  to  have  an  American  base  in  that 
community,  and  also  their  treatment  of  the  families  of  those  per- 
sonnel, because  quality  of  life  for  the  attending  personnel,  that  is 
the  family  members,  is  highly  relevant  and  of  great  concern  to  any 
commanding  officer  and  to  the  service  leadership.  And  so  the  way 
those  folks  are  treated  when  they  move  in  that  community,  in  that 
society,  is  relevant. 

And  so  I  wouldn't  say  it  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do,  I  would 
say  it  is  not  the  primary  consideration. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Well,  that  is  an  important  point,  although  I 
must  say  that  I  detected  nothing  from  any  comments  we  heard 
there,  nor  certainly  from  General  Jones,  that  there  was  anything 
other  than  complete  affinity  between  the  communities  and  the  peo- 
ple stationed  there.  I  didn't  hear  anything  about  treatment.  We 
don't  want  to  confuse  the  fulminations  of  policymakers  with  day- 
to-day  treatment  in  the  community.  I  haven't  heard  anything  like 
that. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  no.  And  I  would  say  we  are  going  to  have 
this  hearing  on  the  week  of  the  24th.  At  that  point  all  of  these  cri- 
teria that  I  have  mentioned  will  be  discussed.  Certainly  that  will 
be  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  But,  in  any  event,  I  am  pleased  to  see  that 
the  BRAC  question  is  not  exclusively  in  the  purview  or  within  the 
boundaries  of  the  United  States. 

Then  just  two  other  points  quickly.  I  know  it  was  touched  on,  or 
may  have  been  touched  on,  when  I  wasn't  here,  but  I  do  want  to 


160 

elicit  your  commentary,  General  Shinseki,  to  the  degree  you  are 
able  to  say  it,  and  if  you  have  a  policy  of  the  Pentagon  that  can 
be  stated  with  authority,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  would  like  to  hear  it. 

We  are  going  to  have  more  and  more  discussion  not  only  in  this 
committee,  but  in  the  broader  public  over  this  deployment  of  troops 
into  Colombia,  and  this  question  of  whether  we  are  guarding  a 
pipeline,  a  private  pipeline  for  oil,  is  to  me  very,  very  unfortunate. 

I  think  it  is  no  news  to  anybody,  least  of  all  to  the  both  of  you, 
that  people  like  myself  and  Representative  Taylor  and  others  have 
had  considerable  consternation  over  this  policy  of  sending  anybody 
to  Colombia  as  it  is  now.  But  some  of  the  people  that  are  down 
there  now  are  among  the  most  highly  trained  professional  soldiers, 
maybe  the  most  highly  trained,  of  virtually  any  soldiers  maybe  in 
the  history  of  the  country  in  their  capacity,  and  I  am  very,  very 
concerned  that  we  are  going  to  utilize  their  professionalism  in  a 
manner  that  will  cause — because  of  their  capacity,  because  of  their 
lethality,  because  of  their  proficiency,  put  them  in  circumstances 
where  the  politics  of  this  are  going  to  overwhelm  them,  are  going 
to  overcome  them,  and  events  are  going  to  get  in  the  saddle  and 
ride  us. 

I  would  like  to  know  if  you  can  say  today  what  precisely  is  the 
mission  of  the  people  presently  deployed  in  Colombia,  and  does 
that  mission  now  include  taking  a  position  with  respect  to  this 
rebel  or  combination  of  rebel  movements,  and  that  the  United 
States  is  now  taking  a  lead  position  in  fighting  these  rebel  move- 
ments? 

General  Shinseki.  I  am  not  aware  that  our  soldiers  are  taking 
a  lead  in  combat  operations. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  How  are  they  going  to  avoid  it? 

General  Shinseki.  I  am  aware  that  our  mission  down  there  is  to 
train  formations  of  the  Colombian  Army  and  raise  their  combat 
proficiency. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Is  this  not  taking  place  in  the  field? 

General  SHINSEKI.  I  will  have  to  get  you  a  better  answer  on  that. 
Congressman. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Mr.  Secretary,  is  this  not  taking  place  in  the 
field? 

Secretary  White.  I  don't  have  anything  to  add  beyond  what  the 
Chief  of  Staff  said,  and  we  will  have  to  get  back  to  you  with  more 
details. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Well,  I  will  yield  to  Representative  Taylor. 

Mr.  Taylor.  Mr.  Secretary — out  of  deference,  General  Shinseki, 
I  really  didn't  want  to  ask  this  question.  I  didn't  want  to  have  him 
going  away  on  a  bad  note.  But  this  is  a  policy  question.  It  is  not 
with  the  Army,  it  is  coming  straight  from  the  Administration. 

For  all  of  the  reasons  that  my  colleague  just  articulated,  that 
these  are  by  and  large  the  very  best  soldiers  in  an  Army  of  good 
soldiers,  and  they  would  never  question  orders;  they  are  going  to 
do  what  they  are  told.  That  is  just  one  sign  of  them  being  good  sol- 
diers. How  on  Earth,  should  one  of  those  kids  be  from  Mississippi, 
and  should  one  of  those  kids  die  guarding  a  pipeline  owned  by  Oc- 
cidental Petroleum,  through  which  Colombian  National  Oil  Com- 
pany oil  flows,  and  the  Colombian  National  Oil  Company  had 
record  profits  last  year,  and  every  other  oil  company  in  Colombia 


161 

hires  private  contractors  to  guard  their  pipeUnes,  should  that  kid 
be  from  Mississippi,  and  should  he  die  or  be  maimed  guarding  that 
pipeline,  what  do  I  tell  the  family?  Were  they  preserving  democ- 
racy? Were  they  somehow  bringing  light  to  a  people  under — be- 
cause I  don't  see  it.  And,  quite  frankly,  you  may  be  at  their  funeral, 
but  I  will  be  there,  too.  And  the  difference  is  you  are  going  to  go 
back  to  Washington.  I  live  in  Mississippi. 

What  do  I  tell  that  kid's  parents  or  his  family? 
Secretary  White.  I  cannot  enlighten  you  about  the  specifics  of 
the  mission  in  Colombia.  I  am  just— I  have  not  studied  it  in  tre- 
mendous detail. 

Mr.  Taylor.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  would  hope  that  you  would.  We 
have  just  sent  300  of  your  very  best  down  there  for  the  purpose  of 
guarding  that  pipeline.  I  have  done  my  homework  on  this.  I  am  not 
so  sure  this  is  what  our  government  ought  to  be  all  about.  For 
those  people  who  question  the  war  in  Iraq,  I  don't,  but  their  big 
expression  is  no  blood  for  oil.  This  is  pretty  close  to  what  they  are 
talking  about. 

Secretary  WHITE.  I  understand  your  point. 

Mr.  Taylor.  I  would  hope  that  you  would  get  back  to  me,  sir. 
And  I  hope  I  have  said  this  as  respectfully  as  I  can. 
Secretary  White.  I  understand. 
Mr.  Taylor.  I  respect  the  both  of  you. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  I  want  to  be  on  the  record  with  you,  Mr.  Sec- 
retary. I  realize  that  you  are  not  in  a  position  to  be  the  originator 
of  orders  on  this.  During  our  committee  hearings  is  when  you  get 
the  opportunity  and  the  American  public  gets  the  opportunity  to 
hear  what  we  think  about  these  things.  It  is  out  of— I  want  to  reit- 
erate that  it  is  out  of  respect  for  the  soldiers  that  are  there,  and 
out  of  respect  for  what  the  Army  is  trying  to  accomplish  now  in 
terms  of  its  transformation,  of  which— in  the  process  of  which  you 
are  a  key  element,  I  might  say,  Mr.  Secretary.  And  that  is  appre- 
ciated and  understood  by  members  of  this  committee,  me  in  par- 
ticular, I  can  tell  you  that. 

I  would  not  then  want  to  see  bad  policy  then  start  dictating  how 
we  then  view — or  the  prism  through  which  we  get  to  view  what 
those  soldiers  are  capable  of.  I  don't  want  an  ignoble  mission  set 
forward  for  these  very  capable  and  estimable  people. 

Secretary  White.  I  understand  the  point.  I  will  get  back  to  you. 
Mr.  Abercrombie.  Last  thing.  Speaking  of  the  transformational 
capabilities,  I  am  not  precisely  sure.  General  Shinseki,  what  is 
meant — maybe  I  should  ask  the  Secretary  rather. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  am  not  precisely  sure  what  is  meant  by  addi- 
tional capabilities  for  the  Stryker  brigades,  for  the  fifth  and  sixth. 
What  bothers  me  is  the  Pentagon  seems  to  have  gone  to  the  ac- 
countants to  explain  why  they  are  a  little  hesitant  about  the  fifth 
and  sixth  Stryker  Brigades,  as  opposed  to  whether  or  not  the  mis- 
sion for  which  they  are  being  formulated  is  being  advanced. 

They  talk  about  further  capabilities  or  even  more  transformation. 
Precisely  what  do  they  want,  and  what  is  it  going  to  cost,  because 
this  committee  has  been  very,  very  responsive  to  the  requests  of 
the  Army  with  respect  to  the  Stryker  brigades,  because  they  think 
it  makes  good  operational  sense,  good  strategic  sense,  trans- 
formational sense. 


162 

If  there  is  something  that  we  don't  know  about  yet,  or  something 
that  we  need  to  fund  or  to  change  our  pohcies  around  in  order  to 
accommodate  these  further  capabihties,  I  am  sure  you  will  find  a 
responsive  voice  here,  but  it  hasn't  been  given  to  me.  The  only 
thing  that  I  am  able  to  get  out  of  this  is  you  have  got  your  bean 
counters  wondering  whether  they  are  going  to  have  enough  money 
for  it. 

Now,  I  don't  want  to  go  with  this  Stryker  force  that  way.  That 
was  not  the  way  it  was  presented  to  us.  The  way  it  was  presented 
us  was  here  is  what  we  need  to  do  to  transform  the  Army.  Now, 
we  got  to  go  find  the  money,  yes.  But  it  wasn't  presented  to  us, 
"here  is  how  much  money  we  have,  what  can  we  get  for  it,"  and 
then  try  to  shape  the  Stryker  forces  or  the  Stryker  Brigades 
around  the  money. 

Secretary  White.  Well,  it  wasn't  a  bean  counter.  What  we  had 
was — in  the  run-up  to  the  submission  of  the  2004  budget  was  an 
ongoing  dialogue  with  the  Secretary  of  Defense  and  his  staff  about 
the  whole  Stryker  business;  not  only  Brigades  five  and  six,  but  Bri- 
gade four.  And  he  has  asked  us  to  study  whether  the  structure  of 
the — and  it  is  not  really  an  affordability  question,  because  the 
money  is  in  the  program  for  Brigades  five  and  six;  nobody  pulled 
it,  it  is  in  there.  And,  of  course,  we  fully  funded  2004  for  the  second 
Armored  Cavalry  Regiment  (ACR). 

The  question  is  should  we  add  things  like  aviation  to  the  brigade, 
or  should  we  add  additional  intelligence  or  surveillance  assets?  So 
the  question  is,  fine-tuning  the  structure  of  the  brigades  as  opposed 
to  do  you  have  enough  money  to  pay  for  it? 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Okay.  Then  can  I  conclude — thank  you,  Mr. 
Chairman,  for  your  indulgence. 

May  I  conclude  then,  or  may  the  committee  conclude  then,  that 
it  is  unfortunate  that  the  public  presentation,  or  at  least  the  media 
presentation,  tends  to  focus  on  this  cost  versus  mission;  that  that 
is  not  an  issue  as  far  as  you  are  concerned?  The  question — the  real 
question  here,  or  the  only  question  here,  is  how  do  we  maximize 
the  capability  of  these  Stryker  brigades? 

Secretary  White.  That  is  a  fair  characterization. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  And  then,  if  that  is  the  case,  then  the  only 
reason  that  I  think  we  need  to  find  as  soon  as  possible  what  direc- 
tion you  want  to  go  with  it  is  that  this  will  inform  us  as  to  what 
we  should  do  by  way  of  preparing  training  facilities  and  so  on,  be- 
cause they  may  need  to  go  in  a  different  direction,  too. 

Secretary  WHITE.  Yes. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

And  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Secretary,  and.  General  Shinseki, 
aloha. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

And,  gentlemen,  you  might  want  to  put  together,  and  don't  take 
too  many  resources  to  do  it  or  reinvent  the  wheel,  but  put  together 
a  little  briefing  team  on  the  Army  presence  in  Colombia,  the  mis- 
sion, and  their  day-to-day  operations,  and  we  will  have — we  will  try 
to  get  a  few  Members  together,  and  Mr.  Abercrombie,  myself  and 
others,  and  Mr.  Taylor,  and  we  will  talk  about  this. 

Secretary  White.  We  will  do  that.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  The  gentleman  from  Georgia  Mr.  Gingrey. 


163 

Dr.  GiNGREY.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  apologize  for  coming 
in  late.  I  am  learning  as  a  freshman  that  there  are  a  lot  of  things 
going  on  concurrently. 

I  just  want  to  take  the  opportunity  to  thank  the  Secretary  and 
Chairman  for  being  here  and  appreciate  what  you  are  doing  for  the 
country.  And  I  feel  very  confident  in  your  report.  Thank  you  very 
much. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Gingrey,  that  was  by  far  the  best  question 
of  the  entire  session.  We  really  want  to  thank  you  for  giving  them 
a  good  send-off.  And  this  is — has  been  a  very  good  session. 

I  think,  General  Shinseki,  before  we  turn  in  here,  the  gentleman 
from  Missouri,  Mr.  Skelton,  has  a  few  things  that  he  wants  to  go 
over,  and  I  have  got  just  a  few  final  questions  or  points. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Thanks  so  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

This  Congress  established  recently  an  18-month  Army  enhst- 
ment.  For  the  record,  at  a  later  time,  Mr.  Secretary,  would  you  fur- 
nish this  committee  with  the  status  of  that  provision? 

Secretary  White.  Yes. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Please. 

[The  information  referred  to  can  be  found  in  the  Appendix  begin- 
ning on  page  227.] 

Mr.  Skelton.  General  Shinseki,  you  went  to  an  intermediate 
war  college;  did  you  not? 

General  Shinseki.  Intermediate? 

Mr.  Skelton.  Ft.  Leavenworth. 

General  Shinseki.  Yes. 

Mr.  Skelton.  You  went  to  a  senior  war  college;  did  you  not? 

General  SHINSEKI.  Yes,  I  did. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Which  one? 

General  Shinseki.  The  National  War  College  here  in  Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Did  you  find  that  those  experiences — and  they 
were  a  year  each;  am  I  correct? 

General  SHINSEKI.  They  were  a  year  each.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Did  you  find  those  experiences  have  helped  you  in 
your  career? 

General  SHINSEKI.  Yes,  sir,  they  have. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  retired  as  a  flag  officer;  did  you 
not? 

Secretary  White.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Did  you  attend  an  intermediate  war  college? 

Secretary  White.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Which  one? 

Secretary  White.  Command  Staff  College  at  Leavenworth,  same 
class  at  the  Chief  of  Staff 

Mr.  Skelton.  Did  you  attend  a  senior  war  college? 

Secretary  White.  Yes.  Army  War  College. 

Mr.  Skelton.  And  did  you  find  during  your  Army  career  that 
those  two  one  year  experiences  were  of  help  to  you  as  an  Army  offi- 
cer? 

Secretary  White.  Yes.  Very  much. 

Mr.  Skelton.  One  other  subject  that  has  bothered  me  for  some 
time,  and  our  friend  Charlie  Rangel  has  brought  it  to  the  fore  by 
his  proposal  to  establish  a  draft.  I  have  noticed  in  my  various  visits 


164 

to  military  installations,  in  particular  Army  installations,  that  the 
young  men  or  women  that  I  go  down  the  line  with,  whether  it  be 
machine  gun  training  line  or  a  chow  line,  come  from  farms,  small 
towns,  or  inner  cities,  and  I  find  very  few  of  them,  if  any,  coming 
from  the  more  well-to-do  suburbs  of  America.  And  Mr.  Rangel's 
proposal  on  a  draft  touches  this  subject  when  he  correctly  states 
that  it  is  not  a  true  cross-section  of  America.  And  I  realize  that  this 
is  an  all-volunteer  force. 

What,  if  anything,  is  the  Army  doing  to  attract  young  men  and 
young  women  across  the  board  that  are  true  representatives  of 
America,  as  you  slice  across  the  country? 

Secretary  White.  Well,  we  are  very,  very  happy  with  the  results 
of  our  recruiting  from  a — obviously  from  a  quantities  perspective, 
but,  to  your  question,  from  a  quality  perspective  our  recruits  are 
91  percent  high  school  graduates.  The  mental  categories  look  good. 
The  minority  representation  in  the  United  States  Army,  we  are  a 
little  bit  underrepresented  in  the  Hispanic  community,  which  I 
think  is  an  important  thing  for  us  to  address  going  forward.  We  are 
where  we  should  be  in  African  American  recruiting.  So  I  like  the 
cross-section  of  America  that  is  currently  volunteering  to  serve  in 
the  United  States  Army.  I  think  it  is  the  best  we  have  ever  seen. 

General  Shinseki.  Well,  I  would  agree.  I  mean,  there  may  be 
places  in  here  as  we  look  at  representation  of  our  various  commu- 
nities where  we  would  say,  as  the  Secretary  has  said,  in  the  His- 
panic community  we  need  to  be  a  little  bit  more  successful  in  re- 
cruiting in  that  particular  community.  But  even  over  the  last  few 
years,  that  has  shown  significant  increase. 

Mr.  Skelton.  You  are  not  answering  my  question.  My  question 
deals  with  a  true  slice  of  America.  Go  start  knocking  on  doors  at 
a  well-to-do  suburb  anywhere  in  America  and  ask,  do  you  have  a 
son  or  daughter  in  the  United  States  Army?  Invariably  the  answer 
will  be  "no." 

So  I  will  ask  the  question  again.  What,  if  anything,  is  the  United 
States  Army  doing  to  attract  a  true  cross-section  of  America?  It  is 
not  a  matter  of  quality.  Goodness  knows  you  have  wonderful  sol- 
diers, wonderful  soldiers,  and  we  are  so  proud  of  them.  But  I  am 
talking  about  a  cross-section  of  America.  There  is  no  answer. 

General  Shinseki.  I  would  have  to  think  about  how  to  define  a 
true  cross-section  of  America. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Well,  suburbia  in  America  is  a  great  part  of  Amer- 
ica. Start  knocking  on  doors.  Do  you  have  a  son  or  daughter  in  the 
military?  Do  you  have  a  son  or  daughter  in  the  Army?  The  answer 
will  be  no.  How  do  you  interest  those  young  folks? 

I  am  going  down  to  Ft.  Monroe  and  talk  to  the  Training  and  Doc- 
trine Command  (TRADOC)  folks  in  a  few  days.  I  will  put  the  same 
question  to  them.  You  might  alert  them. 

General  Shinseki.  I  will. 

May  we  start  off  with  there  is  no  true  answer  here;  you  need  to 
get  into  the  discussion. 

Mr.  Skelton.  Well,  that  falls  in  the  category  of  think  on  those 
things. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  interject  on  that  question,  too.  I  want 
to — I  am  reminded  that  the  Ranking  Member's  family  participates 
very  substantially,  and  has  traditionally,  in  the  military.   But  I 


165 

want  to — I  think  there  is  a  point  to  be  made  here.  That  is  that  the 
initial  statements  by  our  good  friend,  good  old  veteran  of  this  25th 
Infantry  Division,  Charlie  Rangel,  upon  examination  of  the  facts  by 
DOD,  and  they  were  made  with  respect  to  ethnic  categories,  turned 
out  to  be  v^o-ong.  That  was  the  subject  of  a  story  in  USA  Today. 

And  they  then  began  to  talk  about  whether  or  not  if  you  went 
to  places  like  Princeton  and  Harvard,  and  which  formerly  in  World 
War  II  produced  lots  of  folks  that  joined  the  U.S.  Military,  why  you 
had  a  low  participation  there,  and  the  general  sense  that  perhaps 
folks  from  suburbia  aren't  participating. 

Those  are  generalized  statements  which  may  be — and  certainly 
you  have  the  numbers  of  people  coming  from  these  colleges  and 
universities.  I  think  that  is  something  that  you  can't  ascertain,  but 
whether  you  have  a  representative  mix  is  not  something  that  is — 
that  has  been  demonstrated,  while  it  is  demonstrated  anecdotally, 
hasn't  been  demonstrated  by  analysis. 

So  I  think  we  need  to  see  that.  But  I  think  I  would  say  to  my 
friend,  you  know,  a  lot  of  folks  can't  make  it  in  the  U.S.  Military. 
And  there  are  lots  of  folks  who  are  being  turned  down  every  day 
in  all  of  the  services.  It  is  tough  to  get  in.  It  is  tough  to  pass  these 
tests.  The  tests  have  to  be  in  place. 

I  would  say  to  my  friend  who  says,  what  do  we  need  to  do  to  at- 
tract folks  that  come  from  these  institutions,  and  perhaps  I  am 
pointing  to  the  Princeton,  Harvard  and  Yale,  I  would  say  the  fact 
that  a  lot  of  those  young  people  don't  want  to  join  the  U.S.  Military 
isn't  the  problem  of  the  U.S.  Military,  it  is  their  problem. 

Serving  in  the  U.S.  Military  is  a  privilege.  It  is  not  a  burden.  It 
is  our  finest  citizens  that  join  the  U.S.  Military.  If  they  don't  want 
to  be  among  our  finest  citizens,  that  is  their  decision.  And  so  in 
talking  to — and  incidentally,  facetiously  I  heard  some  Republicans 
talking  the  other  day,  talking  about  they  think  that  there  is — Re- 
publicans are  disproportionately  represented  in  the  combat  arms, 
and  they  wanted  some  Democrats  to  register.  I  am  being  facetious, 
of  course,  but  they  were  referring  to  the  election  results  in  Florida 
and  the  attempts  of  the  Gore  campaign  with  their  32-point  memo 
to  keep  the  absentees  from  voting.  That  wasn't  because  they  were 
going  to  vote  Democrat.  But  I  say  that  facetiously,  and  I  hope  my 
friend  will  take  it  in  good  humor. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Will  the  chairman  jdeld  a  moment? 

The  Chairman.  I  will  yield  to  my  new  registrant  from  Hawaii. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  I  want  to  point  out,  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  complete  my  statement.  Then  I  will  yield 
to  my  good  friend. 

I  think  it  is  a  privilege  to  serve  in  the  U.S.  Military,  and  I  think 
we  have  got  our  finest  citizens  there.  And  I  think  the  question 
should  be  directed  to  institutions  like  Princeton  and  Yale,  and  to 
the  faculties,  as  to — I  think  we  should  ask  them  to  ask  this  ques- 
tion of  themselves:  Why  aren't  they  producing  people  who  want  to 
follow  that  flag  that  gives  them  their  freedom  and  their  economic 
opportunities? 

Mr.  Skelton.  If  I  may  interrupt,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  think,  Mr.  Secretary,  you  ought  to  adopt  his  answer. 

The  Chairman.  I  yield  to  my  friend  from  Hawaii. 


166 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  wanted  to  point  out  that 
you  were  talking  about  how  tough  it  is  to  get  in  the  Army.  On  the 
other  hand,  Representative  Taylor  got  in.  But  my  understanding 
is — my  understanding  is  from  General  Shinseki,  and  I  am  sure  Sec- 
retary White  will  say,  the  tests  have  been  considerably  raised  since 
that  time,  so  that  that  wouldn't  necessarily  happen  again  right 
now. 

But,  more  seriously,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  whole  point  here,  I 
think,  if  Representative  Skeleton  will  indulge  me  a  moment,  there 
were  many  of  us.  Republican  and  Democrat,  who  discussed  with 
the  late  Stephen  Ambrose — we  had  a  little  discussion  group  with 
him,  and  among  other  things  discussed  during  that  time,  as  you 
will  recall,  was  universal  service,  which  is  what  we  are  talking 
about  here,  which  could  include  service  in  the  armed  services,  for 
your  benefit  and  amplification  on  Representative  Skelton's  re- 
marks. 

And  included  in  that  the  whole  idea  here,  it  has  been  grabbed 
by  the  press  that  when  we  are  talking  about  diversity,  that  this  is 
racial  or  perhaps  ethnic,  but  what  we  were  really  talking  about 
there  is  class,  if  there  was  to  be  any  diversity  at  all.  That  is  to  say, 
if  we  are  going  to  have  universal  service,  what  we  were  talking 
about  is  quite  literally  the  universe  of  those  who  would  be  eligible 
by  virtue  of  age;  and  to  commit  to  universal  service,  was  this  a  pol- 
icy of  the  United  States  that  we  should  consider  and  take  up  for 
consideration? 

Concomitant  with  that,  obviously,  would  be  service  in  the  armed 
services.  And  to  the  degree  that  the  armed  services,  by  virtue  of 
the  voluntary  nature  of  it  and  the  particular  appeals  that  are  made 
by  the  services  now  to  induce  people  to  consider  the  armed  serv- 
ices, that  it  was  likely  that  there  would  be  a  class  bias  in  that.  Not 
that  it  is  a  plot  or  a  conspiracy,  but  that  if  there  was  to  be  a  dif- 
ferentiation within  the  ranks,  it  would  more  likely  be  on  the  basis 
of  class,  regardless  of  the  racial  capacity. 

In  fact,  I  would  be  happy  to  state  for  the  record  that  my  belief 
is  that  the  Armed  Services,  the  Army  in  particular  and  the  Ma- 
rines, have  an  excellent  understanding  of  the  possible  sources  of 
their  recruitment,  and  have  a  terrific  record  in  terms  of  racial  di- 
versity, ethnic  diversity  and  reaching  out  for — affirmative  action,  if 
you  will,  in  the  armed  services,  I  think,  which  would  easily  stand 
anybody's  scrutiny  with  regard  to  how  successful  that  has  been 
across  the  board. 

But,  by  definition,  a  volunteer  armed  services,  you  are  inevitably 
going  to  run  into  class  differences  as  is  reflected  in  the  college 
graduate  discussion  that  we  have  been  having,  or  the  college-age 
person. 

I  must  admit,  in  conclusion,  that  it  is  very  disconcerting  to  me 
to  see  people  who  are  all  too  eager,  especially  younger  people,  all 
too  eager  about  going  to  fight  here  or  going  to  fight  there  who  have 
no  intention  of  doing  it  themselves,  but  have  every  intention  of 
cheering  forthrightly  and  loudly  when  somebody  else  goes  off  to  do 
it.  That  is  what  I  think  the  impetus  behind  the  question  of  the 
draft  is,  or  selective  service. 

And  I  might  ask  in  that  regard,  do  you  have  a  position  with  re- 
spect to  selective  service?  My  position  is  that  at  the  age  of  18,  ev- 


167 

eryone  should  register  for  selective  service,  men  and  women.  We 
have  women  serving  in  the  armed  services  now.  I  think  it  is  at  best 
a  disconnect,  and  at  worst  it  is  a  fundamental  hypocrisy  to  have 
young  men  register  at  18  for  selective  service  and  have  women  left 
out  of  the  picture.  Should  selective  service  have  to  be  transformed 
into  a  draft  at  some  time  in  the  future,  my  belief  is  that  everybody 
should  be  subject  to  it,  including  males  and  females. 

Secretary  White.  I  mean  from  a  personal  perspective,  I  don't 
think  the 

The  Chairman.  The  questions  aren't  getting  easier,  you  realize. 

Secretary  WHITE.  No.  You  asked  that  question  of  the  Secretary, 
I  think,  when  he  was  here. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Yes. 

Secretary  WHITE.  As  I  recall,  what  he  said  was 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  I  was  asked  to  be  put  on  the  dance  card  at 
the  time. 

Secretary  White.  But  he,  as  I  recall,  he  said  that  the  administra- 
tion was  not  contemplating  any  change  in  the  draft  registration 
laws.  But  the  United  States  Army  is  15  percent  female.  They  per- 
form vital  roles.  They  are  high  density  in  some  of  our  combat  serv- 
ice support.  So  it  would  seem  to  me  logical  that  you  would  register 
women  as  well  as  males,  because  we  have  done  an  excellent  job 
over  the  past  30  years  of  fully  integrating  female  soldiers  into  our 
organization. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  Well,  I  will  conclude  with  this,  Mr.  Chairman. 
I  appreciate  your  indulgence. 

Secretary  WHITE.  That  is  my  personal  view. 

Mr.  Abercrombie.  I  understand.  But  see,  to  me  the  most  blatant 
discrimination  in  terms  of  the  volunteer  service  and/or  consider- 
ation of  a  draft  is  that — is  to  me  the  screaming  hypocrisy  of  having 
selective  service,  which  is,  after  all,  the  first — it  is  the  fundament — 
it  is  the  foundation  of  all  of  this  consideration  in  the  first  place,  is 
that  every  male  at  the  age  of  18  has  to  register  for  selective  serv- 
ice, period. 

And  so  all  of  this  discussion  taking  place  with  this — there  is  this 
big  animal  in  the  corner  of  the  room  that  nobody  is  looking  at, 
which  is  the  most  blatant  discrimination  and  bias,  is  that  we  still 
have  gender  segregation  with  selective  service.  So  I  for  one  feel 
that  if  we  at  least  got  that  out  of  the  way,  we  could  have  a  con- 
versation that  wasn't  hypocritical  from  the  get-go. 

But  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

And,  General  Shinseki,  we  are  giving  you  a  going-away  party  to 
beat  all  going-away  parties. 

The  gentleman  from  Georgia,  Mr.  Gingrey. 

Dr.  Gingrey.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  did  have  a  very  short 
comment  when  I  first  had  the  opportunity,  but,  of  course,  now  it 
has  changed  a  little  bit  when  these  last  comments  came  up.  So  I 
truly  do  have  a  comment  to  make  and  an  easy  question. 

My  comments  basically  have  already  been  stated,  and  much  bet- 
ter than  I  can  do  it,  by  our  chairman.  But  to  expect  to  have  a  true 
cross-section  of  our  society  in  our  Armed  Forces,  I  think,  is  a  little 
unrealistic.  I  can  see  both  sides  of  this  argument,  the  side  for  re- 


168 

instituting  the  draft,  and  the  side  of  the  argument  that  the  all-vol- 
unteer Armed  Forces  are  working  quite  well. 

We  are  getting  men  and  women  in  the  Armed  Forces  on  a  vol- 
untary bases  because  they  want  to  be  there.  And  I  quite  honestly 
am  comfortable  sleeping  at  night  knowing  that  each  and  every 
member  of  the  Armed  Forces  is  there  because  they  want  to  be 
there,  and  they  are  qualified  to  defend  this  country  no  matter  what 
side  of  the  track  they  happen  to  have  been  born  on. 

And  my  question  to  either  the  Secretary  or  to  General  Shinseki 
in  regard  to  getting  at  this  in  another  way,  I  will  never  forget  the 
movie  Born  on  the  4th  of  July,  starring  Tom  Cruise.  That  young 
man  was  in  high  school.  A  Marine  recruiter  came,  talked  to  that 
class  or  that  school  about  serving  in  the  Armed  Forces  and  what 
a  great  thing  that  would  be  for  a  young  person  to  do. 

Why  don't  we  look  very  closely,  Mr.  Secretary,  at  trying  to  en- 
courage, maybe  if  not  mandatory,  but  to — for  our  government  to 
support  Junior  Reserve  Officer  Training  Candidate  (ROTC)  pro- 
grams and  have  them  in  more  of  our  school  systems  across  this 
country  so  that  our  young  people,  not  at  the  time  they  get  to  Yale 
or  Princeton  or  Harvard  or  even  Georgia  Tech,  where  I  went — let's 
get  them  at  the  high  school,  junior  and  senior  level,  and  teach 
them — teach  them  a  little  American  history. 

I  am  serving  on  the  Education  Committee  as  well  as  on  Armed 
Services,  and  we  talk  about  that  a  lot,  about  mandatory  history 
and  that  sort  of  thing.  Let's  get — through  the  Junior  ROTC  pro- 
gram, we  could  teach  these  young  people  history,  patriotism,  desire 
to  serve,  whether  they  serve  or  not.  And  I  don't  disagree  with  Mr. 
Abercrombie  in  regard  to  the  registration  of  each  and  every  18- 
year-old  under  the  Selective  Service  System.  Whether  we  ever  in- 
stitute the  draft  again,  I  think  I  agree  with  him:  Males  and  females 
should  be  registered. 

But  what  we  need  to  do  is  encourage  more  people  at  the  high 
school  level,  you  know,  even  though  some  of  them  may  be  well 
qualified  to  get  into  our  very  best  universities,  both  private  and 
public  across  this  country,  and  they  may  be  coming  from  the  most 
affluent  family  in  their  community,  both  parents  college  graduates, 
a  computer  in  every  room,  et  cetera,  et  cetera.  If  you  motivate  them 
at  the  right  time,  then  I  think  a  lot  of  them  would  join  our  armed 
services  and  end  up,  Mr.  Secretary,  with  all  respect  to  you,  hope- 
fully sitting  where  you  are  sitting  today.  It  is  a  great  career.  And 
I  think  that  is  probably  the  right  approach. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  And  one  thing  I  wanted 
to  note  was  being  down  at  Quantico,  at  the  Marine  officers  pro- 
gram here  a  couple  of  months  ago,  it  was  interesting.  The  Com- 
manding Officer  (CO)  at  the  school  told  me  that  he  had  been  ap- 
proached by  several  Ivy  League  schools  who  wanted  to  send  their 
graduates  through  Officer  Candidate  School  (OCS),  through  the  of- 
ficers school  there,  and  he  turned  them  down.  He  said,  you  can't 
go  through  without  signing  up  for  the  program.  They  wanted  it,  in- 
terestingly, for  the  credential  of  being  an  officer  in  the  United 
States  Armed  Forces,  in  this  case,  Marine  Corps.  But  I  think  prob- 
ably you  have  the  same  situation  with  respect  to  Fort  Benning. 


169 

And  so  this  is  what  we  have  got.  We  have  got  a  situation  where 
we  are — a  history  whereas  I  recall  Theodore  Roosevelt's  father  in 
the  Civil  War,  a  thing  that  always  bothered  Roosevelt  is  that  he 
had  actually  hired  a  stand-in,  and  in  those  days  you  hired  a  stand- 
in  to  go  to  war  for  you,  and  your  family  could — if  you  were  wealthy 
enough,  you  could  follow  the  stand-in's  progress  as  he  went  down 
through  the  battles  and  say,  what  did  he  do  at  Gettysburg  yester- 
day? Is  he  still  alive?  Presumably,  if  you  lost  a  stand-in,  you  could 
get  another  one.  So  you  have  that  situation. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  you  watched  that  movie  Gods  and  Gen- 
erals, you  saw  the  magnificent  performance  of  lots  of  people,  and 
you  had  a  guy  named  Chamberlain  who  was  a  professor,  I  think, 
in  Maine,  who  joined  because  he  thought  it  was  right.  And  so  we 
go  back  to  the  deck  of  that  carrier  that  James  Michener — that 
scene  he  described  at  the  end  of  the  book  The  Bridges  of  Toko  Ri, 
where  the  commanding  officer,  while  that  was  a  Navy  situation,  re- 
flected on  where  America  gets  these  people. 

And  it  is  amazing,  because  we  all  travel  to  the  troops  and  we  see 
these  people  putting  themselves  in  extraordinary,  difficult  cir- 
cumstances, highly  inconvenient,  for  something  that  at  that  time 
that  does  not  seem  to  be  logical  or  tangible.  And  that  is  the  com- 
pulsion, this  patriotic  feeling  that  Americans  have  to  serve  their 
country,  and  it  appears,  gentlemen,  that  while  we  started  this  ex- 
periment called  the  volunteer  military,  that  it  has  worked  and  that 
the  records  of  these  people  in  all  of  the  services  have  been  extraor- 
dinary records,  their  unit  records,  their  individual  records,  and  we 
have  right  now  a  very  high-quality  military. 

So  maybe  it  is  incumbent  upon  some  of  these  institutions  that 
don't  contribute  greatly  to  the  enlistments  in  our  armed  services  to 
ask  themselves,  what  is  wrong  with  us? 

So  thanks  a  lot  for  being  here  and  putting  up  with  us. 

And,  Mr.  Skelton,  any  final  remarks  here? 

Mr.  Skelton.  Just  a  milhon  thanks.  General  Shinseki,  for  the 
wonderful  work  that  you  have  done. 

General  Shinseki.  May  I,  Mr.  Chairman,  just  close,  since  this  ap- 
pears, other  than  the  hearings  you  may  have  just  announced,  my 
last  opportunity  to  appear  with  Secretary  White  before  this  com- 
mittee. And  he  had  the  regiment  to  the  north.  He  has  never  let  me 
forget  that. 

Thanks  for  the  great  leadership  from  both  sides  of  the  aisle  on 
this  committee.  You  have  made — it  is  a  special  privilege  to  be 
asked  to  serve  as  chief  of  a  service  in  this  great  country  of  ours. 
You  have  made  it  an  especially  rewarding  experience,  those  of  you 
who  sit  on  this  committee,  and  you  have  been  very  generous  in 
your  compliments  this  morning.  And  I  just  like  to  return  the  com- 
pliment to  all  of  you.  This  has  been  fulfiUing  for  this  soldier,  and 
I  think  we  together  have  done  tremendously  great  things  for  the 
Army  and  for  the  Nation,  and,  most  importantly,  for  the  soldiers 
who,  as  we  have  all  said,  choose  to  wear  this  uniform. 

So  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much,  General.  Thanks  for  your 
great  service  to  our  country.  We  appreciate  it. 

[Whereupon,  at  1  p.m.,  the  committee  was  adjourned.] 


APPENDIX 

February  12,  2003 


PREPARED  STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED  FOR  THE  RECORD 

February  12,  2003 


Opening  Statement  of  Chairman  Duncan  Hunter 

House  Armed  Services  Committee 

Posture  Hearing  On  FY  2004  Army  Budget 

February  12,  2003 


Today,  the  committee  will  consider  the  fiscal  year  2004 
budget  request  of  the  Department  of  the  Army. 

I  am  pleased  to  welcome  back  Secretary  Tom  White  and 
General  Eric  Shinseki,  Army  Chief  of  Staff,  to  discuss  the  various 
elements  of  the  proposed  program  for  the  Army. 

Before  proceeding  further,  I  want  to  take  a  moment  to 
recognize  General  Shinseki 's  long  and  distinguished  service  to  his 
nation  and  to  the  men  and  women  of  the  United  States  Army.  I 
know  that  we  will  continue  to  work  closely  with  you  over  the 
coming  months,  but  since  this  will  mark  your  last  budget  posmre 
presentation  before  this  committee,  it  is  only  appropriate  that  we 


(175) 


176 
recognize  your  service  and  thank  you  for  all  that  you  have  done  to 
further  the  goals  and  future  of  the  Army. 

I  fmd  it  somewhat  ironic  to  read  the  daily  stream  of  press 
reports  that  characterize  the  President's  defense  budget  request  as 
a  huge  and  historic  increase  in  spending.  I  raise  this  because 
perhaps  no  other  element  of  the  overall  defense  budget  better 
characterizes  the  dilemma  facing  the  miUtary  services  than  the 
Army  budget. 

This  budget  request  does  continue  to  make  careful 
investments  in  key  areas  to  enhance  pay  and  benefits,  quality  of 
life  for  our  troops  and  traming  and  sustainability  of  our  forces.  It 
also  makes  significant  enhancement  in  important  research  and 
development  programs.  But  as  in  years  past,  these  enhancements 
come  at  a  steep  price  in  terms  of  the  trade  offs. 


177 
The  overall  Anny  request  for  Fiscal  Year  2004  is  $93.9 
billion,  an  increase  of  $3  billion  above  the  current  year.  However, 
these  numbers  reflect  a  cut  of  $2.3  billion  in  the  Army's 
procurement  program  which  was  already  on  life  supports  from  a 
decade  of  neglect.  Part  of  this  cut  results  in  the  cancellation  of  24 
Army  programs  in  order  to  harvest  $  1 .6  biUion  in  FY04  and 
around  $14  billion  over  the  FYDP  for  other  priorities. 

I  am  eager  to  hear  your  case  as  to  why  we  can  afford  to 
abruptly  shelve  these  programs  which  form  the  backbone  of  our 
current  heavy  ground  combat  capability.  I  understand  the 
budgetary  argument,  what  I  need  to  hear  is  the  mihtary  argument 
that  supports  the  notion  that  we  can  afford  to  walk  away  from 
modernizing  our  heavy  forces  at  this  juncture  without  accepting 
significant  risk  in  terms  of  loss  of  combat  power. 


178 
There  are  numerous  other  aspects  of  the  proposed  Army 

program  that  deserve  mention,  but  I  think  it  best  to  allow  them  to 

be  explored  more  fully  during  today's  hearing  and  the  dozens  of 

subcommittee  hearings  that  will  follow  examining  this  budget 

request  in  greater  detail. 

I  now  recognize  the  committee's  ranking  Democrat,  Mr. 
Skelton,  for  any  remarks  he  may  wish  to  make. 

[Following  Mr.  Skelton 's  remarks] 

Mr.  Secretary,  General  Shinseki,  the  entirety  of  your 
prepared  statements  will  be  entered  into  the  record. 

Secretary  White,  the  floor  is  yours. 


179 

Opening  Statement  for  The  Honorable  Ike  Skelton  (D-MO), 

Ranking  Member,  Committee  on  Armed  Services,  U.S.  House  of 

Representatives 

Posture  Hearing  on  FY  2004  Army  Budget  Request 

February  12,  2003 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Secretary  White,  General 
Shinseki:  thank  you  for  being  here.  At  the  outset  let  me  say  hov»^     . 
proud  we,  and  all  Americans  are,  of  the  valiant  service  our  soldiers 
provide  everyday.  We  know  too  well  that  they  continue  to  fight 
terrorism  in  Afghanistan,  that  they  are  training  others  to  battle 
terrorism  in  such  places  as  the  Philippines  and  Georgia,  and  that 
they  are  poised  to  disarm  Iraq  if  the  President  gives  that  order.  The 
strains  are  enormous — for  our  soldiers  and  their  families — and  I 
hope  you  will  tell  them  how  grateful  we  are  for  their  service. 

ut.  r, . 

Given  these  sacrifices,  I  worry  that  we  are  asking  our  soldiers 
to  do  too  much  with  too  little.  As  you  know,  I  have  been  concerned 
for  years  about  the  adequacy  of  Army  end-strength.  Yet,  the  strains 
have  never  been  greater  than  they  are  today.  Soldiers  are  deployed 

1 


180 
globally  in  the  war  against  terrorism.  There  is  the  real  potential  for 
war  in  Iraq  that  will  require  large  ground  forces.  So,  too,  will  the 
aftermath  of  any  war,  as  Iraq  transitions  to  a  new  civilian 
government.  Some  of  these  demands  will  continue  for  a  long  time, 
perhaps  for  a  decade.  I  don't  see  how  we  can  continue  to  meet  these 
requirements  responsibly  without  an  end-strength  increase. 

Yet  the  current  budget  does  not  include  such  an  increase.  To 
the  contrary,  it  pays  for  the  addition  of  nearly  1,900  new  Special 
Operations  troops  with  Army  billets.  There  is  no  doubt  that  we 
need  more  special  operations  forces,  but  this  should  not  come  out  of 
the  hide  of  an  already-overburdened  Army.  I  hope  you  both  will 
address  this  issue  and  suggest  how  we  on  this  committee  may  help 
ensure  that  the  Army  has  all  the  forces  it  needs  to  fully  respond  to 
the  demands  the  country  places  on  it. 

Beyond  our  active-duty  forces,  our  reservists  are  also  carrying 
an  enormous  burden.  I  recently  returned  from  Europe  where  I  saw 


181 
first  hand  the  strain  of  frequent  activations  on  these  volunteers.  I 
fear  that  in  the  coming  years  recruitment  and  retention  in  the 
reserve  components  will  suffer  from  these  pressures.  I  would  like  to 
hear  both  your  views  on  how  to  reduce  the  strain  on  our  reservists 
and  whether  we  need  to  rethink  the  mix  and  structure  between  the 
Army's  active  and  reserve  forces. 

If  we  get  the  personnel  situation  right,  I  still  remain  concerned 
about  the  dip  in  Army  procurement  spending.  Certainly,  cutting 
and  restructuring  programs  makes  sense;  we  all  want  to  make  the 
best  use  of  taxpayers'  money.  And  I  know  the  great  plans  you  have 
for  programs  like  Stryker  (with  a  Y)  that  are  integral  to  the  Army's 
Objective  Force.  But  I  am  concerned  that  we  may  be  mortgaging 
our  present  too  greatly  to  pay  for  the  great  systems  of  the  future.  I 
hope  you  will  tell  us  of  any  budgetary  or  other  pressures  that  may 
be  impeding  the  Army's  ability  to  modernize  or  to  field  its  objective 
force. 


182 
Secretary  White,  General  Shinseki:  I  commend  both  of  you 
and  all  who  work  for  you  for  the  outstanding  service  you  provide 
this  nation.  You  do  it  despite  the  difficult  trade-offs  and  despite  the 
increasing  missions.  Thank  you  for  all  that  you  do.  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Chairman. 


183 
STATEMENT  BY 


THE  HONORABLE  THOMAS  E.  WHITE 
SECRETARY  OF  THE  ARMY 

AND 

GENERAL  ERIC  K.  SHINSEKI 

CHIEF  OF  STAFF 

UNITED  STATES  ARMY 


BEFORE  THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  ARMED  SERVICES 
UNITED  STATES  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


ON  THE  POSTURE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  ARMY  2003 

FIRST  SESSION,  108™  CONGRESS 
FEBRUARY  12,  2003 


184 

STATEMENT  BY 

The  HONORABLE  THOMAS  E.  WHITE 
SECRETARY  OF  THE  ARMY 

AND 

GENERAL  ERIC  K.  SHINSEKI 

CHIEF  OF  STAFF 

UNITED  STATES  ARMY 


Mr.  Chairman  and  distinguished  members  of  the  Committee,  thank  you  for  this 
opportunity  to  report  to  you  today  on  the  Posture  of  the  United  States  Army. 


America's  armed  forces  are  the  most  powerful  in  the  world.  And  America's  Army 
remains  the  most  respected  landpower  to  our  friends  and  allies  and  the  most 
feared  ground  force  to  those  who  would  threaten  the  interests  of  the  United 
States. 


Since  before  the  birth  of  the  Nation,  American  Soldiers  have  instilled  hope  in  a 
noble  dream  of  liberty.  They  have  remained  on  point  for  the  Nation  through  nine 
wars,  and  the  intervals  of  peace  in  the  years  between  -  defending  the 
Constitution  and  preserving  freedom.  Magnificent  in  their  selfless  service,  long  in 
their  sense  of  duty,  and  deep  in  their  commitment  to  honor,  Soldiers  have  kept 
the  United  States  the  land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the  brave.  This  is  our 
legacy.  Our  Soldiers  who  serve  today  preserve  it. 


In  October  1999,  we  unveiled  our  vision  for  the  future  -  "Soldiers,  on  point  for  the 
Nation,  transforming  this,  the  most  respected  army  in  the  world,  into  a 
strategically  responsive  force  that  is  dominant  across  the  full  spectrum  of 
operations."  The  attacks  against  our  Nation  on  1 1  September  2001  and  the 
ensuing  war  on  terrorism  validate  The  Army's  Vision  -  People,  Readiness, 
Transformation  ~  and  our  efforts  to  change  quickly  into  a  more  responsive, 
deployable,  agile,  versatile,  lethal,  survivable,  and  sustainable  force. 


While  helping  to  fight  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism,  The  Army  is  in  the  midst  of  a 
profound  transformation.  Readiness  remains  our  constant  imperative  -  today, 
tomorrow,  and  the  day  after.  Transformation,  therefore,  advances  on  three  broad 
axes:  perpetuating  The  Army's  legacy  by  maintaining  today's  readiness  and 
dominance;  bridging  the  operational  gap  with  an  Interim  Force  of  Stryker  Brigade 
Combat  Teams;  and  fielding  the  Objective  Force  to  fight  and  win  conflicts  in  the 
years  beyond  this  decade. 


1  - 


185 

As  they  have  throughout  The  Army's  227-year  history.  Soldiers  remain  the 
centerpiece  of  our  formations.  Versatile  and  decisive  across  the  full  spectrum  of 
joint  missions,  land  forces  have  demonstrated  time  and  again  the  quality  of  their 
precision  in  joint  operations.  Our  responsibility  is  to  provide  Soldiers  with  the 
critical  capabilities  needed  for  the  tough  missions  we  send  them  on. 


After  three  and  a  half  years  of  undiminished  support  from  the  Administration  and 
the  Congress,  and  the  incredible  dedication  of  Soldiers  and  Department  of  the 
Army  civilians,  we  have  begun  to  deliver  The  Army  Vision.  With  continued  strong 
support,  we  will  win  the  war  against  global  terrorism,  meet  our  obligations  to  our 
friends  and  allies,  remain  ready  to  prevail  over  the  unpredictable,  and  transform 
ourselves  for  decisive  victories  on  future  battlefields. 


We  have  achieved  sustainable  momentum  in  Army  Transformation;  the 
framework  is  in  place  to  see  the  Objective  Force  fielded,  this  decade. 

THE  ARMY  -  AT  WAR  AND  TRANSFORMING 

The  United  States  is  at  war,  and  The  Army  serves  the  Nation  by  defending  the 
Constitution  and  our  way  of  life.  It  is  our  nonnegotiable  contract  with  the 
American  people  -  to  fight  and  win  our  Nation's  wars,  decisively. 

In  the  weeks  immediately  following  the  attacks  of  1 1  September  2001 ,  Special 
Operations  Forces  (SOF)  infiltrated  Afghanistan,  penetrated  Al  Qaida  and 
Taliban  strongholds,  and  leveraged  all  available  long-range,  joint  fires,  enabling 
the  Northern  Alliance  to  begin  dismantling  the  Taliban.  By  January  2002,  U.S. 
and  Allied  conventional  force  reinforcements  began  to  set  the  stage  for  Operation 
ANACONDA,  where  Soldiers,  demonstrating  courage  and  determination  under 
the  most  challenging  conditions,  defeated  AI  Qaida  at  altitude  on  the 
escarpments  overlooking  the  Shah-e-kot  Valley. 

Today,  more  than  198,000  Soldiers  remain  deployed  and  forward  stationed  in 
120  countries  around  the  globe,  conducting  operations  and  training  with  our 
friends  and  allies.  Decisively  engaged  in  the  joint  and  combined  fight  against 
global  terrorism,  Soldiers  are  serving  with  distinction  -  at  home  and  abroad. 
Soldiers  from  both  the  Active  and  the  Reserve  Component  have  remained  "on 
point"  for  the  Nation  in  the  Balkans  for  seven  years,  in  Saudi  Arabia  and  Kuwait 
for  12  years,  in  the  Sinai  for  21  years,  and  in  Korea  and  Europe  for  over  50 
years.  At  the  publication  of  this  Army  Posture  Statement,  there  were  more  than 
1 10,000  Reserve  Component  Soldiers  mobilized  for  active  federal  service  in 
support  of  Operation  Noble  Eagle  and  Operation  Enduring  Freedom.  Even  as 
we  transform,  Soldiers  will  remain  ready  to  answer  the  calls  of  the  Nation  to 
defeat  well-trained,  determined,  and  dangerous  adversaries  who  miscalculate  in 
taking  on  the  best  led,  the  best-equipped,  and  the  best-trained  army  in  the  world. 


2- 


186 

At  war  and  transforming,  The  Army  is  accelerating  change  to  harness  the  power 
of  new  technologies,  different  organizations,  and  revitalized  leader  development 
initiatives  to  remain  at  the  head  of  the  line.  To  accomplish  this,  Army 
Transformation  advances  along  three  major  axes  towards  attainment  of  the 
Objective  Force.  We  selectively  recapitalize  and  modernize  today's  capabilities 
to  extend  our  overmatch  in  staying  ready  to  defend  our  homeland,  keep  the 
peace  in  areas  important  to  the  Nation,  and  win  the  war  against  global  terrorism. 
Stryker  Brigade  Combat  Teams  -  our  Interim  Force  -  will  bridge  the  current 
operational  gap  between  our  rapidly-deployable  light  forces  and  our  later-arriving 
heavy  forces,  paving  the  way  for  the  arrival  of  the  Objective  Force.  By  2010,  The 
Army's  Objective  Force-  organized,  equipped,  and  trained  for  ground 
dominance,  cyber-warfare,  and  space  exploitation  -  will  provide  the  Nation  the 
capabilities  it  must  have  to  remain  the  global  leader,  the  strongest  economy  in 
the  world,  and  the  most  respected  and  feared  military  force,  by  our  friends  and 
allies  and  our  enemies,  respectively. 

The  surprise  attacks  against  our  Nation  and  Operation  Enduring  Freedom,  in 
response  to  those  attacks,  validated  The  Army  Vision  and  provided  momentum 
to  our  efforts  to  transform  ourselves  into  an  instrument  of  national  power  that 
provides  full  spectrum  operational  capabilities  that  are  strategically  responsive 
and  capable  of  decisive  victory.  In  a  little  over  three  years,  we  have  begun  to 
realize  The  Army  Vision  -  People,  Readiness,  and  Transformation. 

The  transforming  Army  is  enriching  as  a  profession  and  nurturing  to  families 
whose  sacrifice  has  borne  the  readiness  of  the  force  for  the  past  10  years.  Our 
Weil-Being  initiatives  are  our  commitment  to  reverse  this  trend  by  giving  our 
people  the  opportunity  to  become  self-reliant;  setting  them  up  for  personal  growth 
and  success;  aggressively  investing  in  family  housing;  and  revitalizing  Single- 
Soldier  living  space  in  our  barracks.  Our  manning  initiatives  have  filled  our  line 
divisions  and  other  early  deploying  units  to  dampen  the  internal  turbulence  of 
partially  filled  formations  and  help  put  a  measure  of  predictability  back  into  the 
lives  of  our  families. 

The  Army  has  carefully  balanced  the  risk  between  remaining  ready  for  today's 
challenges  and  preparing  for  future  crises.  With  unwavering  support  from  the 
Administration,  the  Congress,  our  Soldiers,  and  Department  of  the  Army 
Civilians,  The  Army  has  made  unprecedented  progress  in  its  efforts  to  transform. 

We  will  achieve  Initial  Operating  Capability  (IOC)  for  the  first  Stryker  Brigade 
Combat  Team  (SBCT)  this  summer  and  demonstrate  the  increased 
responsiveness,  deployability,  agility,  verastility,  lethality,  survivability,  and 
sustainability  that  SBCTs  provide  to  Combatant  Commanders.  In  a  little  over 
three  years  from  initial  concept  to  fielded  capability,  the  SBCTs  will  allow  us  to 
glimpse  the  potential  for  acquisition  reform  in  paving  the  way  for  delivery  of  the 
Objective  Force. 


3- 


187 

We  have  constructed  the  framework  for  achieving  the  Objective  Force  this 
decade:  a  Transformation  Campaign  Plan  With  Roadmap;  the  Objective  Force 
White  Paper;  the  Operational  and  Organizational  plans  for  the  Objective  Force 
Unit  of  Action;  and  the  Operational  Requirements  Document  for  the  Future 
Combat  System  of  Systems. 

Additionally,  The  Army  is  poised  to  fill  ground  maneuver's  most  critical  battlefield 
deficiency  -  armed  aerial  reconnaissance  -  w/ith  Comanche,  a  capable, 
survivable,  and  sustainable  aircraft  that  is  a  cornerstone  of  the  Objective  Force. 

All  along  the  way,  we  have  tested  our  concepts  in  wargames  and  experiments, 
checked  and  rechecked  our  azimuth  to  the  Objective  Force  weekly  and  monthly, 
and  look  forward  to  a  successful  Future  Combat  System  Milestone  B  Defense 
Acquisition  Board  decision  in  May  of  this  year. 

However,  we  cannot  accelerate  Army  Transformation  without  transforming  the 
way  The  Army  does  business  -  from  transformation  of  logistics  and  acquisition  to 
personnel  and  installation  transformation.  Revolutionizing  A.my  business 
management  practices  achieves  the  best  value  for  taxpayers'  dollars;  conserves 
limited  resources  for  investment  in  People,  Readiness,  and  Transformation; 
enhances  management  of  personnel  systems,  installations  and  contracting;  and 
augments  our  potential  to  accelerate  arrival  of  the  Objective  Force.  Changing 
The  Army  is  first  about  changing  the  way  we  think,  and  better  business  practices 
represent  practical  application  of  common  sense  initiatives  that  best  serve  The 
Army  and  our  Nation. 

We  are  proud  of  our  progress.  V\/e  are  grateful  for  the  strong  Congressional 
support  that  has  helped  put  The  Army  on  its  approach  march  to  the  Objective 
Force.  The  Army  2003  Posture  Statement  describes  our  tremendous  progress  in 
Transformation  -  an  orchestrated  campaign,  synchronized  with  OSD  and  Joint 
Transformation,  to  achieve  the  Objective  Force  and  keep  America's  Army  the 
dominant  landpower  in  the  world. 

THE  STRATEGIC  ENVIRONMENT  -THE  REQUIREMENT  TO  TRANSFORM 

During  the  last  two  decades  of  the  20'^  Century,  information-age  technologies 
dramatically  changed  the  political,  economic,  and  military  landscapes.  Desert 
Shield,  Desert  Storm,  and  operations  in  Kuwait,  Bosnia,  and  Kosovo  illustrated 
the  requirement  for  transforming  our  forces  to  meet  the  evolving,  strategic 
requirements  of  our  Nation.  Survivable  and  extremely  lethal,  our  heavy  forces 
effectively  met  the  requirements  for  which  they  were  designed;  yet,  they  were 
slow  to  deploy  and  difficult  to  sustain.  Conversely,  our  light  forces  were  rapidly 
deployable,  but  they  lacked  the  protection,  lethality,  and  tactical  mobility  that  we 
seek  across  the  spectrum  of  military  operations.  We  were  successful  in  winning 
the  Cold  War  and,  as  a  result,  smaller  than  we  had  been  in  40  years.  The  Army 


4- 


188 

no  longer  had  the  luxury  of  specialized  forces  built  to  confront  a  single  and 
narrowly  defined  threat  like  the  Warsaw  Pact  countries. 

Today's  challenges  are  more  complex;  threats  are  elusive  and  unpredictable. 
The  fight  against  international  terrorism  has  overshadowed,  but  not  eliminated, 
other  potential  crises.  Tension  between  India  and  Pakistan  persists;  stability 
between  China  and  Taiwan  is  tenuous;  and  concern  over  North  Korea  escalates. 
Threats  of  transnational  terrorism  and  the  proliferation  of  weapons  of  mass 
destruction  (WMD)  -  often  financed  by  organized  crime,  illicit  drug  transactions, 
trafficking  in  women  and  children,  and  the  sale  of  arms  -  further  complicate  the 
security  environment.  Geopolitical  trends  such  as  scarce  resources,  youth 
population-spike  in  underdeveloped  countries,  aging  populations  in  developed 
countries,  and  the  growth  of  mega-cities,  among  others,  presage  a  future 
strategic  environment  of  diverse  and  widely  distributed  threats. 

Fully  appreciating  the  internal  and  external  difficulties  that  profound  change 
engenders,  we  assessed  the  operational  challenges  of  the  new  century  against 
the  capabilities  of  our  Cold  War  Army,  recognized  the  opportunity  to  leverage  the 
inherent  combat  power  of  the  technological  revolution,  and  set  a  clear  path 
ahead  -  The  Army  Vision. 

The  2002  National  Security  Strategy  (NSS)  reaffirms  our  military's  highest  priority 
-  defending  the  United  States.  To  do  this  effectively,  we  assure  our  allies  and 
friends;  dissuade  future  military  competition;  deter  threats  against  U.S.  interests, 
allies,  and  friends;  and  decisively  defeat  any  adversary,  if  deterrence  fails.  The 
NSS  directs  the  military  to  transform  to  a  capabilities-based  force  ready  to 
respond  to  unpredictable  adversaries  and  security  crises.  The  Objective  Force 
meets  these  NSS  requirements,  and  Army  Transformation  will  enhance  our 
ability  to  conduct  rapid  and  precise  operations,  achieve  decisive  results  at  the 
time  and  place  of  our  choosing,  and  safeguard  the  Nation's  ability  to  exercise  our 
right  of  self-defense  through  preemption,  when  required. 

The  2001  Quadrennial  Defense  Review  describes  a  capabilities-based  approach 
to  defense  planning  that  provides  broader  military  options  across  the  operational 
spectrum,  from  pre-  to  post-conflict  operations.  The  force-sizing  construct  -  1-4- 
2-1  -  takes  into  account  the  number,  scope  and  simultaneity  of  tasks  assigned 
the  military:  it  sizes  the  force  for  defense  of  the  U.S.  homeland  (1),  forward 
deterrence  in  four  critical  regions  (4),  the  conduct  of  simultaneous  warfighting 
missions  in  two  regions  (2)  -  while  preserving  the  President's  option  to  call  for 
decisive  victory  in  one  of  those  conflicts  (1)  -  and  participation  in  multiple, 
smaller  contingency  operations. 

THE  ARMY  -  SERVING  TODAY,  BALANCING  RISK,  MANAGING 
TRANSFORMATION 


5- 


189 

Soldiers  are  the  most  precise  and  responsive  means  to  strike  and  then  control 
enemy  centers  of  gravity  on  the  ground  -  where  people  live,  work,  and  govern. 
American  Soldiers  are  disciplined,  professional,  and  trained  for  success  in 
diverse  missions;  they  are  the  foundation  of  a  flexible  force  that  accomplishes  its 
missions  in  the  non-linear  battlespace  by  integrating  new,  innovative 
technologies  and  techniques  with  current  systems  and  doctrine.  Our  people 
adapt  under  the  harshest  conditions,  whether  in  the  deserts  of  Kuwait  and  the 
Sinai,  the  mountains  and  rice  paddies  of  Korea,  or  the  tropics  of  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Timor-Leste. 

These  demanding  commitments  mean  we  must  nurture  a  balance  between 
current  and  near-term  readiness  and  our  Transformation  to  meet  future 
challenges.  The  Army  has  accepted  reasonable  operational  risk  in  the  mid-term 
in  order  to  fund  our  Transformation  to  the  Objective  Force.  To  avoid 
unacceptable  risk,  we  are  monitoring  closely  the  current  operational  situation  as 
we  support  the  Combatant  Commanders  in  the  war  against  terror,  conduct 
homeland  defense,  and  prosecute  the  long-term  effort  to  defeat  transnational 
threats.  We  have  designed  and  implemented  the  Strategic  Readiness  System 
(SRS)  to  provide  a  precision,  predictive  tool  with  which  to  monitor  The  Army  and 
make  appropriate  adjustments  to  preserve  current  readiness.  Our  surge  capacity 
in  the  industrial  base  further  reduces  current  risk  by  keeping  production  lines 
warm  and  responsive.  And  our  first  Stryker  Brigade  Combat  Team  will  provide 
the  Combatant  Commanders  with  a  new  capability  to  further  mitigate  operational 
risk  -  even  as  we  transform  to  the  Objective  Force. 

REALIZING  THE  ARMY  VISION  -  PEOPLE,  READINESS,  AND 
TRANSFORMATION 

In  1999,  The  Army  announced  its  vision  to  transform  into  a  more  strategically 
responsive  force,  dominant  across  the  full  spectrum  of  military  operations.  The 
Army  Vision  addresses  three  essential  components:  People,  Readiness,  and 
Transformation.  Soldiers  are  the  heart  of  The  Army,  the  centerpiece  of  our 
formations,  and  the  foundation  of  our  combat  power.  Readiness  remains  our 
overarching  imperative;  it  is  the  means  by  which  we  execute  our  nonnegotiable 
contract  with  the  American  people  -  to  fight  and  win  our  Nation's  wars, 
decisively.  To  preserve  readiness  while  rapidly  changing.  Transformation 
advances  on  three  major  axes:  preserving  our  Army  legacy  by  maintaining 
readiness  and  dominance  today;  bridging  the  operational  gap  with  Stryker 
Brigades  -  the  Interim  Force;  and  fielding  the  Objective  Force  this  decade  to 
keep  The  Army  dominant  in  the  years  beyond  this  decade. 

Realizing  The  Army  Vision  requires  the  concerted  effort  of  the  entire  Army, 
across  all  components  -  from  warfighting  to  institutional  support  organizations. 
The  Army  published  its  Transformation  Campaign  Plan  in  April  2001  to 
synchronize  and  guide  this  complex  undertaking.  The  November  2001  Objective 
Force  White  Paper  describes  the  advanced  capabilities  and  core  technologies 


-  6 


190 

needed  to  build  the  Objective  Force.  The  Army's  June  2002  Army 
Transformation  Roadmap  defines  Transformation  as  a  continuous  process  -  with 
specific  waypoints  -  that  increases  our  contributions  to  the  Joint  Force  while 
achieving  the  six  Department  of  Defense  (DoD)  critical  operational  goals.  The 
result  will  be  a  more  strategically  responsive  and  full  spectrum  dominant  force 
capable  of  prompt  and  sustained  land  combat  operations  as  a  member  of  the 
joint  force. 

In  support  of  the  emerging  joint  operational  concepts  and  architectures,  The 
Army  -  as  the  major  landpower  component  -  continues  to  develop  ground 
concepts  for  a  full  spectrum,  and  multidimensional  force.  These  concepts  are 
producing  a  Joint  Force  that  presents  potential  enemies  with  multiple  dilemmas 
across  the  operational  dimensions  -  complicating  their  plans,  dividing  their  focus, 
and  increasing  their  chances  of  miscalculation. 

In  future  joint  operations,  Objective  Force  units  will  be  capable  of  directing  major 
operations  and  decisive  land  campaigns  with  Army  headquarters.  Objective 
Force  headquarters  at  all  levels  will  provide  the  Joint  Force  Commander  (JFC) 
with  seamless,  joint  battle  command  and  decision  superiority.  The  modularity 
and  scalability  of  our  Objective  Force  formations  will  provide  an  unprecedented 
degree  of  flexibility  and  adaptability  to  the  Combatant  Commander  -  providing 
the  right  force  at  the  right  time  for  decisive  outcomes. 

PEOPLE  -  OUR  MOST  VALUABLE  RESOURCE 

The  Army  Vision  begins  and  ends  talking  about  people.  People  are  central  to 
everything  else  we  do  in  The  Army.  Platforms  and  organizations  do  not  defend 
this  Nation;  people  do.  Units  do  not  train,  stay  ready,  grow  and  develop 
leadership  -  they  do  not  sacrifice  and  take  risks  on  behalf  of  the  Nation.    People 
do.  Institutions  do  not  transform;  people  do.  People  remain  the  engine  behind 
all  of  our  magnificent  moments  as  an  Army,  and  the  well-being  of  our  people  - 
the  human  dimension  of  our  Transformation  -  is  inextricably  linked  to  Army 
readiness. 

In  our  Vision,  we  recommitted  ourselves  to  doing  two  things  well  each  and  every 
day  -  training  Soldiers  and  civilians  and  growing  them  into  competent,  confident, 
disciplined,  and  adaptive  leaders  who  succeed  in  situations  of  great  uncertainty. 
We  are  dedicated  to  preparing  our  Soldiers  to  lead  joint  formations,  to  enabling 
our  headquarters  to  command  and  control  joint  forces,  and  to  providing  to  those 
joint  formations  the  capabilities  only  The  Army  can  bring  to  the  fight:  the  ability  to 
control  terrain  and  populations. 

MANNING  THE  FORCE 

The  objective  of  our  manning  strategy  is  to  ensure  we  have  the  right  people  in 
the  right  places  to  fully  capitalize  on  their  warfighting  expertise  -  this  is  The 


-7 


191 

Army's  commitment  to  the  Nation,  Army  leaders.  Soldiers,  and  our  families. 
Correctly  manning  our  units  is  vital  to  assuring  that  we  fulfill  our  missions  as  a 
strategic  element  of  national  policy;  it  enhances  predictability  for  our  people;  and 
it  ensures  that  leaders  have  the  people  necessary  to  perform  their  assigned 
tasks.  In  FYOO,  we  implemented  a  strategy  to  man  our  forces  to  100  percent  of 
authorized  strength,  starting  with  divisional  combat  units.  The  program 
expanded  in  FY01  and  FY02  to  include  early  deploying  units.  In  FY02,  we 
maintained  our  manning  goals  and  continued  to  fill  our  Divisions.  Armored 
Cavalry  Regiments,  and  selected  Early  Deploying  Units  to  100  percent  in  the 
aggregate,  with  a  93  to  95  percent  skill  and  grade-band  match.  We  remain  on 
target  to  accomplish  our  long-term  goal  of  filling  all  Army  units  to  100  percent  of 
authorized  strength. 

RECRUITING  AND  RETAINING  THE  FORCE 

In  1999,  The  Army  missed  its  recruiting  goals  for  the  Active  Component  (AC)  by 
about  6.300  inductees,  and  for  the  Reserve  Component  by  some  10,000.  Our 
recruiting  situation  was  simply  unacceptable,  and  we  committed  ourselves  to 
decisive  steps  and  reversed  that  trend. 

In  FY02.  The  Active  Component  achieved  100  percent  of  its  goal  in  recruiting 
and  retention  -  for  the  third  consecutive  year.  The  Army  exceeded  its  AC  79,500 
enlisted  accession  target  in  FY02  and  exceeded  our  aggregate  FY02  retention 
objective  of  56,800  Soldiers  in  all  three  categories  by  1 ,437.  We  are  poised  to 
make  the  FY03  accession  target  of  73,800,  and  we  expect  to  meet  our  Active 
Component  FY03  retention  target  of  57,000.  The  FY04  accession  target  is  set  at 
71,500. 

The  Army  Reserve  has  met  mission  for  the  last  two  years,  and  its  recruiting  force 
is  well  structured  to  meet  FY04  challenges.  The  Army  Reserve  continues  to 
maintain  a  strong  Selected  Reserve  strength  posture  at  205,484  as  of  17 
January  2003  -  over  100.2  percent  of  the  FY03  End  Strength  Objective. 
Overcoming  many  recruiting  and  retention  challenges  in  FY02,  the  Army  National 
Guard  (ARNG)  exceeded  endstrength  mission,  accessions  were  104.5  percent  of 
goal,  and  we  exceeded  reenlistment  objectives. 

To  ensure  that  we  continue  to  recruit  and  retain  sufficient  numbers,  we  are 
monitoring  the  current  environment  -  GWOT  and  frequent  deployments  -  to 
determine  impact  on  morale,  unit  cohesiveness,  combat  effectiveness,  and 
support  of  Weil-Being  programs  that  draw  quality  people  to  The  Army.  We 
continue  to  examine  innovative  recruiting  and  retention  initiatives.  The 
challenges  we  face  in  FY03  and  04  are  two-fold:  increase  recruiter  productivity 
and  recruiting  resources  necessary  to  maintain  recruiting  momentum  when  the 
economy  becomes  more  robust.  Resourcing  recruiting  pays  dividends  well 
beyond  accessions  in  the  year  of  execution.  For  example.  Army  advertising  in 


,8 


192 

FY02  influenced  not  only  FY02  accessions,  but  also  potential  recruits  who  will  be 
faced  with  enlistment  decisions  in  FY03  and  beyond. 

RESERVE  COMPONENT  FULL-TIME  SUPPORT  (FTS) 

Today,  nnore  than  50  percent  of  our  Soldiers  are  in  the  Reserve  Component 
(RC).  The  GWOT  and  Homeland  Defense  are  significant  undertakings  that 
demand  a  high  level  of  resourcing.  The  RC  has  been  key  to  our  success  in 
these  operations.  To  ensure  The  Army's  RC  continues  to  meet  ever-increasing 
demands  with  trained  and  ready  units.  The  Army  plans  to  increase  Full-Time 
Support  authorizations  2  percent  each  year  through  FY12,  increasing  the  FTS 
from  the  current  level  of  69,915  to  a  level  of  83,046.  The  Army  recognizes 
additional  Full-Time  Support  authorizations  as  the  number  one  priority  of  the 
Army  National  Guard  and  Army  Reserve  leadership. 

CIVILIAN  COMPONENT 

As  a  comprehensive  effort  to  consolidate,  streamline,  and  more  effectively 
manage  the  force,  The  Army  has  begun  an  initiative  to  transform  our  civilian 
personnel  system.  High  quality,  well-trained  civilians  are  absolutely  essential  to 
the  readiness  of  our  force  and  our  ability  to  sustain  operations  today  and  in  the 
future.  Recruiting,  training,  and  retaining  a  highly  skilled,  dedicated  civilian 
workforce  is  critical  in  meeting  our  obligations  to  the  Combatant  Commanders 
and  the  Nation.  Aggressive  transformation  of  our  civilian  force  -  in  which 
projections  through  FY05  indicate  a  16  percent  annual  turnover  due  to 
retirements  and  other  losses  -  will  ensure  we  continue  to  meet  those  obligations. 

As  of  FY02,  The  Army  employed  277,786  civilian  personnel.  To  forecast  future 
civilian  workforce  needs  with  precision,  we  developed  the  Civilian  Forecasting 
System  (CIVFORS),  a  sophisticated  projection  model  that  predicts  future  civilian 
personnel  requirements  under  various  scenarios.  The  Army  is  working  closely 
with  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  Defense  (OSD)  and  other  federal  agencies  to 
demonstrate  the  power  of  this  system  so  they  can  fully  leverage  its  capabilities, 
as  well. 

The  Civilian  Personnel  Management  System  XXI  (CPMS  XXI)  has  identified  the 
reforms  necessary  to  hire,  train,  and  grow  a  civilian  component  that  supports  the 
transforming  Army.  To  achieve  this,  we  have  redefined  the  way  civilians  are 
hired,  retained,  and  managed.  Mandatory  experiential  assignments  will  become 
the  vehicle  by  which  we  develop  future  leaders.  CPMS  XXI  fully  responds  to 
current  mandates  in  the  President's  Management  Agenda  and  incorporates  the 
results  of  the  Army  Training  and  Leader  Development  Panels.  For  example,  two 
initiatives  for  recruiting  well-trained  civilians  are: 

•    The  Army  Civilian  Training,  Education,  and  Development  System 
(ACTEDS)  -  a  centrally  managed  program  that  accesses  and  trains 


-9 


193 

civilian  interns  and  grows  a  resource  pool  of  personnel  who  can 
accede  to  senior  professional  positions. 
•    The  DoD  Appropriations  Act  for  FY02  and  FY03  provided  Direct 
Hire  Authority  (DHA)  for  critical,  hard-to-fill  medical  health  care 
occupations  and  enabled  the  reduction  in  average  fill-time  for  these 
positions  to  29  days. 

ARMY  WELL-BEING 

The  readiness  of  The  Army  is  inextricably  linked  to  the  well-being  of  our  people, 
and  Army  Weil-Being  is  the  human  dimension  of  our  Transformation.  Well-Being 
responds  to  the  physical,  material,  mental,  and  spiritual  needs  of  all  Army  people 
-  Soldiers,  civilians,  retirees,  veterans,  and  their  families.  We  recognize  the 
fundamental  relationship  between  Well-Being  programs  and  institutional 
outcomes  such  as  readiness,  retention,  and  recruiting.  To  support  mission 
preparedness  as  well  as  individual  aspirations,  Well-Being  integrates  policies, 
programs,  and  human  resource  issues  into  a  holistic,  systematic  framework  that 
provides  a  path  to  persona!  growth  and  success  and  gives  our  people  the 
opportunity  to  become  self-reliant.  We  recruit  Soldiers,  but  we  retain  families  - 
Well-Being  programs  help  make  The  Army  the  right  place  to  raise  a  family.  And 
when  our  families  are  cared  for.  Soldiers  can  better  focus  on  their  mission  - 
training,  fighting,  and  winning  our  Nation's  wars,  decisively. 

Soldiers  appreciate  the  Nation's  devotion  to  them,  and  they  are  grateful  for  the 
country's  recognition  of  their  service  and  sacrifices.  Recent  improvements  to  the 
Montgomery  Gl  Bill,  Tricare  for  Life,  Tricare  Reform,  Retired  Pay  Reform,  the  4.1 
percent  general  pay  increase,  and  additional  pay  increases  in  2003,  are  all 
important  to  Soldiers  and  their  families.  These  initiatives  have  helped  The  Army 
respond  to  the  well-being  needs  of  our  people.  Army  voluntary  education 
programs  improve  our  combat  readiness  by  expanding  Soldier  skills,  knowledge, 
and  aptitudes  to  produce  confident,  competent  leaders.  Other  Well-Being 
initiatives  include: 

•  Spouse  Employment  Summit.  The  Army  is  developing  partnerships 
with  the  private  sector  to  enhance  employment  opportunities  for  Army 
spouses  and  provide  improved  job  portability  for  them. 

•  Spouse  Orientation  and  Leader  Development  (SOLD).  SOLD 
connects  Army  spouses  and  enhances  their  opportunity  to  serve  as 
valued  leaders  who  contribute  to  the  readiness  and  future  of  The  Army 
and  our  Nation. 

•  Army  University  Access  Online.  eArmyU  offers  Soldiers  access  to  a 
variety  of  on-line,  post-secondary  programs  and  related  educational 
services.  wwvv.eArmyU.com  is  a  comprehensive  web-portal  widely 
accessible  to  Soldiers,  including  those  in  Afghanistan,  Bosnia,  and 
Kuwait. 

•  In-State  Tuition.  To  level  the  playing  field  for  access  to  education 
opportunities,  The  Army  is  working  to  encourage  states  to  grant  in- 


10- 


194 

state  status  for  military  personnel  and  families  at  public  colleges  and 
universities  in  their  Soldier's  state  of  legal  residence  and  state  of 
assignment. 

♦  High  School  Senior  Stabilization.  This  policy  enhances  predictability 
by  allowing  families  to  request  stabilization  at  their  sponsor's  current 
duty  location  if  they  have  a  child  who  will  graduate  from  high  school 
during  that  year. 

•  Secondary  Education  Transition  Study  (SETS)  Memorandum  of 
Agreement  (MOA).  Facilitated  by  The  Army,  this  agreement  among 
participating  school  superintendents  is  their  commitment  to  partner  and 
improve  high  school  transitions  for  DoD  children.  Currently,  over  110 
school  superintendents  have  signed  the  SETS  MOA. 

LEADER  DEVELOPMENT  -TRAINING  SOLDIERS  AND  CIVILIANS,  AND 
GROWING  LEADERS 

The  Army  is  a  profession  -  the  Profession  of  Arms.  Conducting  decisive  ground 
combat  operations  in  defense  of  the  United  States  and  its  interests  is  a  core 
competency  of  this  profession.  The  development  of  each  member  of  The  Army 
is  the  foundation  of  lifelong  devotion  to  duty  -  while  in  uniform  and  upon  returning 
to  the  civilian  sector. 

By  its  nature,  our  profession  is  extraordinarily  complex  and  dangerous.  The 
American  people  entrust  The  Army  with  the  sacred  responsibility  to  apply  lethal 
force  in  defense  of  U.S  interests.  As  such,  the  Profession  of  Arms  must  remain 
firmly  grounded  in  constitutional  values  and  must  constantly  change  and  grow  to 
preserve  its  competitive  advantage  in  an  evolving  strategic  environment.  At  all 
levels,  our  leaders  -  military  and  civilian  -  must  apply  their  professional 
knowledge  in  increasingly  varied  and  unique  situations  that  are  characteristic  of 
today's  strategic  environment.  Ultimately,  we  must  grow  professional  Army 
leaders  who  provide  wise  and  discerning  military  judgments  founded  on  long 
experience  and  proven  professional  expertise.  This  capacity  is  developed  only 
through  a  lifetime  of  education  and  dedicated  service  -  in  peace  and  in  war. 

Soldiers  serve  the  Nation  with  the  full  realization  that  their  duty  may  require  them 
to  make  the  supreme  sacrifice  for  others  among  their  ranks.  Soldiers  fighting  the 
war  on  terrorism  today,  those  who  will  fight  our  future  wars,  and  those  who  have 
fought  in  our  past  wars  are  professional  warfighters  and  a  precious  national 
asset.  To  ensure  we  remain  the  greatest  landpower  in  the  world  defending  the 
greatest  country  in  the  world.  The  Army  and  the  Nation  rely  upon  their  unique 
and  hard-earned  experiences  and  skills.  To  develop  the  operational  skills 
required  to  defend  the  Nation,  training  must  remain  our  number  one  priority. 

The  evolving  strategic  environment,  the  gravity  of  our  responsibilities,  and  the 
broad  range  of  tasks  The  Army  performs  require  us  to  review  and  periodically 
update  the  way  we  educate,  train,  and  grow  professional  warfighters.  The 


-11  - 


195 

Army's  strategic  responsibilities  to  the  Nation  and  Combatant  Commanders  now 
embrace  a  wider  range  of  missions.  Those  missions  present  our  leaders  with 
even  greater  challenges  than  previously  experienced.  Therefore,  leader 
development  is  the  lifeblood  of  the  profession.  It  is  the  deliberate,  progressive, 
and  continuous  process  that  trains  and  grows  Soldiers  and  civilians  into 
competent,  confident,  self-aware,  and  decisive  leaders  prepared  for  the 
challenges  of  the  21^'  Century  in  combined  arms,  joint,  multinational,  and 
interagency  operations. 

In  June  2000,  we  convened  the  Army  Training  and  Leader  Development  Panel 
(ATLDP).  The  ATLDP's  purpose  is  to  identify  skill  sets  required  of  Objective 
Force  Soldier  and  civilian  leaders.  Further,  ATLDP  assesses  the  ability  of 
current  training  and  leader  development  systems  and  policies  to  enhance  these 
required  skills.  In  May  2001,  The  Army  Training  and  Leader  Development  Panel 
Phase  I  (Officer  Study)  identified  seven  strategic  imperatives  and  generated  89 
recommendations.  With  those,  we  validated  the  requirement  to  transform  our 
Officer  Education  System  (OES)  -  from  the  Officer  Basic  Course  through  the 
Command  and  General  Staff  Officer  Course.  Additionally,  the  panel  reconfirmed 
the  value  of  Joint  Professional  Military  Education  II  (JPME  II)  in  preparing  our 
leaders  for  joint  assignments.  The  most  significant  product  of  the  officer  ATLDP 
is  our  OES  Transformation. 

ATLDP  Phase  I  (Officer  Study)  identified  three  high-payoff  institutional  training 
and  education  initiatives  for  lieutenants,  captains,  and  majors.  The  first  of  these 
is  the  Basic  Officer  Leader  Course  (BOLC).  BOLC  will  provide  a  tough, 
standardized,  graduate-level,  small-unit  leadership  experience  for  newly 
commissioned  officers.  The  second  of  these  initiatives  is  the  Combined  Arms 
Staff  Course  (CASC)  for  staff  officers,  and  the  Combined  Arms  Battle  Command 
Course  (CABCC)  for  company  commanders.  Both  courses  will  capitalize  on 
advanced  distributed  learning  and  intensive  resident  training  methods.  The  third 
initiative.  Intermediate  Level  Education  (ILE),  will  provide  all  majors  with  the 
same  common  core  of  operational  instruction,  and  it  will  provide  additional 
educational  opportunities  that  are  tailored  to  the  officer's  specific  career  field, 
branch,  or  functional  area.  Beyond  ILE,  Army  officers  continue  to  attend  Joint  or 
Senior  Service  Colleges  to  develop  leader  skills  and  knovkledge  appropriate  to 
the  operational  and  strategic  levels  of  the  profession. 

Completed  in  May  2002,  the  ATLDP  Phase  II  (NCO  Study)  resulted  in  78  findings 
and  recommendations  extending  across  six  imperatives  -  Army  culture,  NCO 
Education  Systems  (NCOES),  training,  systems  approach  to  training,  training 
and  leader  development  model,  and  lifelong  learning.  Among  others,  the  ATLDP 
Phase  II  recommended  building  new  training  and  leader  development  tools  for 
NCOs  to  replace  current  methods,  as  required.  The  ATLDP  Phase  III  (Warrant 
Officer  Study)  culminated  with  63  recommendations  extending  across  four  crucial 
imperatives.  Recommendations  included  clarifying  the  warrant  officer's  unique 
role  in  The  Army  and  improving  the  Warrant  Officer  Education  System  (WOES) 


12 


196 

to  ensure  timely  training  and  promotion.  The  Civilian  Training  and  Leader 
Development  Panel  (Phase  IV)  study  results  are  complete,  and  we  are  forming 
the  Implementation  Process  Action  Team  (l-PAT).  I-PAT  will  identify  actions  The 
Army  must  take  to  increase  the  professional  development  of  our  civilian 
workforce.  At  the  senior  leader  level,  The  Army  initiated  the  Army  Strategic 
Leadership  Course  (ASLC).  The  program  is  aimed  at  teaching  principles  of 
strategic  leadership,  with  emphasis  on  visioning,  campaign  planning,  leading 
change,  and  Transformation.  To  date,  we  have  completed  twelve  of  the 
foundation  courses  and  three  alumni  courses,  training  the  majority  of  The  Army's 
genera!  officers. 

READINESS  -WINNING  OUR  NATION'S  WARS 

HOMELAND  SECURITY  (HLS) 

Defending  our  Nation  -  abroad  and  at  home  -  against  foreign  and  domestic 
threats  is  fundamental  to  The  Army's  legacy,  and  our  warfighting  focus  provides 
capabilities  relevant  to  HLS  requirements.  HLS  missions  range  from  traditional 
warfighting  competencies  that  defeat  external  threats  to  the  non-combat  tasks 
associated  with  supporting  civil  authorities  in  domestic  contingencies.  Operation 
NOBLE  EAGLE  mobilized  over  16,000  Army  National  Guard  Soldiers  to  protect 
critical  infrastructure.  These  Soldiers  assisted  the  Department  of  Transportation 
in  securing  our  Nation's  airports  while  also  playing  a  vital  role  in  securing  our 
Nation's  borders.  The  Army  is  moving  forward  to  provide  one  Civil  Support  Team 
(CST)  to  each  state,  as  required  by  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for 
FY03.  The  CSTs  support  Incident  Commanders  and  identify  Chemical, 
Biological,  Radiological,  Nuclear,  and  Explosive  (CBRNE)  agents  and 
substances,  assess  current  and  projected  consequences,  advise  on  response 
measures,  and  assist  with  appropriate  requests  for  additional  support.  To  date, 
OSD  has  certified  30  of  32  teams,  and  The  Army  is  working 
to  establish  additional  teams.  Collectively,  the  certified  teams  have  performed 
890  operational  missions  since  11  September  2001.  The  Army  remains 
committed  to  HLS,  dedicating  Active  Component  (AC)  and  Reserve  Component 
(RC)  staffs  to  focus  on  training,  doctrine,  planning,  and  execution  of  DoD 
missions  in  support  of  civil  authorities. 

MISSILE  DEFENSE 

Robust  Missile  Defense  is  a  vital  warfighting  requirement  that  protects  both  our 
homeland  and  our  deployed  forces.  Missile  Defense  includes  far  more  than  a 
reactive  capability  to  shoot  down  missiles  in  their  reentry  phase.  Missile  Defense 
requires  a  coherent  system  of  sensors;  battle  command;  weapons  systems;  and 
active,  passive,  proactive,  and  reactive  operational  concepts,  all  aimed  at 
destroying  enemy  missiles  -  not  only  during  their  reentry  phases.  Missile 
Defense  must  also  be  able  to  destroy  enemy  missiles  on  the  ground,  before  they 


13 


197 

launch  or  during  their  boost  phase  once  launched.  Missile  Defense  is  inherently 
a  joint  capability  to  which  The  Army  is  a  major  contributor. 

The  Army  is  deploying  and  employing  Ground  Mobile  Defense  (GMD)  assets  to 
contribute  to  this  warfighting  capability,  accelerating  the  fielding  of  the  Patriot 
Advanced  Capability  3  (PAC3)  system,  and  developing  directed  energy  weapons 
that  will  bring  new  defense  measures  to  The  Army  and  the  Nation.  We  are 
postured  to  assume  control  of  the  Medium  Extended  Air  Defense  System 
(MEADS)  program  in  FY03  and  intend  to  begin  fielding  by  FY12. 

MEADS  is  a  transformational  program  of  Objective  Force  quality  and  a  significant 
improvement  on  Patriot's  capabilities.  It  will  be  more  mobile  and  more 
deployable  (C130  capable)  than  Patriot  and  cover  a  360-degree  radius  to 
Patriot's  120  degrees.  It  will  be  effective  against  low  radar,  cross  section  cruise 
missile  targets;  and  require  only  30  percent  of  Patriot's  manpower.  And  MEADS 
will  be  more  accurate  and  more  sustainable  than  Patriot. 

CHEMICAL  DEMILITARIZATION 

In  Section  1412  of  Public  Law  99-145,  Congress  directed  the  DoD  to  destroy  the 
United  States'  chemical  weapons  stockpile.  In  turn,  the  Secretary  of  Defense 
delegated  management  of  all  chemical  munitions  disposal  to  the  Department  of 
the  Army.  On  November  29,  2000,  the  Johnston  Atoll  Chemical  Agent  Disposal 
System,  using  incineration-based  technology,  completely  destroyed  the  last 
stockpiles  stored  at  the  Atoll,  and  closure  operations  began  in  January  2001. 
The  Tooele  Chemical  Agent  Disposal  Facility  has  incinerated  44  percent  of  the 
chemical  agents  and  81  percent  of  the  munitions  stored  there.  Disposal 
operations  at  these  two  sites  destroyed  30  percent  of  the  total  U.S.  chemical 
weapons  stockpiles.    Construction  of  incineration  facilities  at  Anniston,  Alabama; 
Umatilla,  Oregon;  and  Pine  Bluff,  Arkansas,  is  complete.  Systemization  activities 
are  on-going  at  Aberdeen,  Anniston,  Umatilla,  and  Pine  Bluff.  The  plan  to 
accelerate  the  disposal  of  bulk  agents  using  a  neutralization  process  at 
Aberdeen,  Maryland,  and  Newport,  Indiana,  has  been  approved.  Anniston  and 
Aberdeen  are  scheduled  to  start  destruction  in  second  quarter  FY03,  and 
Newport  is  scheduled  to  begin  in  first  quarter  FY04. 

To  comply  with  treaty  agreements  and  the  Congressional  mandate,  we  must 
complete  the  destruction  of  these  weapons  by  2007.  The  treaty  allows  for  a  one 
time,  five-year  extension  to  this  deadline.  With  continued  funding  and  minimal 
schedule  changes,  we  will  safely  destroy  the  U.S.  stockpile  of  lethal  chemical 
agents  and  munitions  at  eight  existing  CONUS  sites. 

TRAINING  THE  FORCE 

In  October  2002,  The  Army  released  Field  Manual  (FM)  7-0.  Training  the  Force. 
Synchronized  with  other  field  manuals  and  publications  being  updated  to  respond 


14 


198 

to  changes  in  Army,  joint,  multinational,  and  interagency  operations,  FM  7-0  is 
the  capstone  doctrinal  manual  for  Army  training  and  leader  development.  It 
provides  the  developmental  methodology  for  training  and  grov/ing  competent, 
confident  Soldiers,  and  it  addresses  both  current  and  future  Objective  Force 
training  requirements. 

We  are  transforming  the  way  we  fight  future  wars,  and  The  Army  is  participating 
fully  in  a  DoD-sponsored  program  to  transform  how  forces  train  to  fight.  This 
effort  involves  four  major  initiatives:  building  upon  existing  service 
interoperability  training;  linking  component  and  joint  command  staff  planning  and 
execution;  enhancing  existing  joint  training  exercises  to  address  joint 
interoperability;  and  studying  the  requirement  for  dedicated  joint  training 
environments  for  functional  warfighting  and  complex  joint  tasks.  The  Army  is 
scheduled  to  host  the  first  joint  National  Training  Center  (NTC)  event  at  Fort 
Irwin,  California,  in  May  2003.  During  June  2003,  the  U.S.  Army  Forces 
Command  will  execute  the  2"^^  joint  NTC  event  -  JCS  exercise  ROVING  SANDS. 

During  the  late  1990s,  funding  for  the  recapitalization  and  modernization  of  The 
Army's  Combat  Training  Centers  (CTCs)  was  reduced,  eroding  their  capability  to 
support  their  critical  missions.  Additionally,  the  Multiple  Integrated  Laser 
Engagement  System  (MILES)  equipment  and  current  force  instrumentation 
systems  have  become  difficult  to  maintain.  The  Army's  CTC  modernization 
program  will  ensure  that  our  premier  training  areas  (NTC  at  Fort  Irwin,  Combat 
Maneuver  Training  Center  (CMTC)  in  Germany,  the  Joint  Readiness  Training 
Center  (JRTC)  at  Fort  Polk,  and  the  Deep  Attack  Center  of  Excellence  near  Gila 
Bend,  AZ)  are  modernized  to  provide  high  quality,  realistic,  full-spectrum  joint 
training.  To  address  these  problems,  The  Army  will  invest  nearly  $700  million 
over  the  next  six  years  to  modernize  these  training  centers. 

OPTEMPO 

In  accordance  with  Congressional  directives.  The  Army  developed  a  new 
methodology  to  prepare  budget  requests  that  accurately  reflect  Operations  and 
Maintenance  requirements.  In  the  report  submitted  in  July  2002,  The  Army 
outlined  updated  processes  that  ensure  consistency  in  reporting  of  tank  miles 
and  reflect  requirements  and  execution  with  more  precision.  Management 
controls  initiated  in  FY01  to  prevent  migration  of  OPTEMPO  funds  to  other  areas 
were  highly  successful  and  remain  in  effect. 

The  Army's  combined  arms  training  strategy  determines  the  resourcing 
requirements  to  maintain  the  combat  readiness  of  our  forces.  For  the  Active 
Component,  The  Army  requires  800  ground  OPTEMPO  miles  per  year  for  the  M1 
Abrams  tank  and  corresponding  training  support;  the  Active  Component  flying 
hour  program  requires  an  average  of  14.5  live  flying  hours  per  aircrew  each 
month.  Both  Army  National  Guard  and  the  Army  Reserve  aircrew  training 
strategies  require  9.0  hours  per  crew  each  month.  The  ARNG  ground 


15 


199 

OPTEMPO  requirement  is  a  composite  average  of  174  miles  in  FY04,  and  the 
USAR  ground  OPTEMPO  requirement  is  200  tank-equivalent  miles  in  FY04. 

While  this  describes  The  Army's  training  strategy,  actual  execution  levels  from 
unit  to  unit  have  varied  depending  upon  factors  such  as  on-going  operations, 
safety  of  flight  messages,  and  adequate  manning  of  combat  formations.  To  this 
end,  The  Army  has  fully  funded  its  AC  ground  OPTEMPO  requirement,  while  its 
AC  flying  program  is  funded  to  its  historical  execution  level  of  13.1  flying  hours. 
The  RC  air  and  ground  OPTEMPO  are  similarly  funded  to  their  execution  levels, 
rather  than  their  requirement.  Although  The  Army  has  not  always  been  able  to 
execute  the  training  strategy,  we  have  taken  steps  to  have  all  units  execute  the 
prescribed  training  strategy  in  FY03.  FY04,  and  beyond. 

FORCE  PROTECTION  AND  ANTI-TERRORISM 

Force  protection  consists  of  those  actions  to  prevent  or  mitigate  hostile  actions 
against  Department  of  Defense  personnel  and  includes  family  members, 
resources,  facilities,  and  critical  information.  In  the  war  on  terrorism,  the  area  of 
operations  extends  from  Afghanistan  to  the  East  Coast  and  across  the  United 
States.  Naturally,  Force  Protection  and  Antiterrorism  measures  have  increased 
across  Army  installations  in  the  Continental  United  States  (CONUS)  and 
overseas. 

Findings  from  the  Cote  Commission,  the  Downing  Report  on  the  Khobar  Towers 
bombing,  and  Army  directives  to  restrict  access  to  installations  have  all  led  to 
thorough  assessments  by  the  Department  of  the  Army  Inspector  General,  the 
Deputy  Chief  of  Staff  for  Operations,  and  commanders.  Our  efforts  focus  on 
improved  force  protection  policy  and  doctrine;  more  rigorous  training  and 
exercises;  improved  threat  reporting  and  coordination  with  national  intelligence 
and  law  enforcement  agencies;  enhanced  detection  and  deterrence  capabilities 
for  Chemical,  Biological,  Radiological,  Nuclear,  and  Explosive  (CBRNE)  threats; 
increased  capabilities  and  protection  for  access  control;  and  expanded 
assessments  of  Major  Commands  (MACOM)  and  installation  force  protection 
programs.  Both  operational  and  installation  environments  rely  upon  secure, 
networked  information  infrastructure  to  execute  daily  enterprise-wide  processes 
and  decision-making,  so  the  parameters  of  force  protection  include  contemporary 
and  evolving  cyber  threats,  as  well. 

The  Army's  Information  Systems  Security  Program  (ISSP)  secures  The  Army's 
portion  of  the  Global  Information  Grid  (GIG),  secures  the  digitized  force,  and 
supports  information  superiority  and  network  security  defense-in-depth  initiatives. 
ISSP  provides  the  capability  to  detect  system  intrusions  and  alterations  and  react 
to  information  warfare  attacks  in  a  measured  and  coordinated  manner.  To  the 
greatest  extent  possible,  it  protects  warfighters'  secure  communications  -  from 
the  sustaining  base  to  the  foxhole. 


16 


200 

Soldiers,  Active  and  Reserve,  are  heavily  engaged  in  force  protection  and  anti- 
terrorism missions.  Soldiers  guard  military  installations,  nuclear  power  plants, 
dams  and  power  generation  facilities;  tunnels,  bridges,  and  rail  stations;  and 
emergency  operations  centers.  During  the  2002  Winter  Olympics  in  Salt  Lake 
City,  Utah,  nearly  1,500  ARNG  Soldiers  provided  security,  and  Soldiers  guarded 
key  infrastructure  sites  during  Super  Bowl  XXXVll  in  January  2003.  Over  12,500 
Reserve  Component  Soldiers  are  currently  mobilized  for  Operation  NOBLE 
EAGLE  to  fulfill  Force  Protection  requirements,  and  in  February  2003,  over  8,000 
Army  National  Guard  Soldiers  will  support  Air  Force  security  requirements  -  a 
requirement  that  could  reach  9,500  Soldiers.  Security  of  detention  facilities  and 
detainees  at  Guantanamo  Bay  Detention  -  a  long-term  detainee  mission  - 
requires  approximately  1500  Army  personnel,  50  percent  of  whom  are  Military 
Police.  Army  Reserve  Internment  and  Resettlement  battalions  on  6-month 
rotations  impact  military  police  availability  to  CONUS  Force  Protection 
requirements. 

SUSTAINMENT 

The  Army  is  revolutionizing  its  logistics  process.  One  initiative,  the  Single  Stock 
Fund  (SSF),  redirected  more  than  $540  million  worth  of  secondary  items  from 
stocks  to  satisfy  customer  demands  between  May  2000  -  SSF  inception  -  and 
November  2002.  During  that  same  period,  we  redistributed  more  than  $218 
million  worth  of  secondary  items  from  the  authorized  stockage  levels  to  meet 
higher  priority  readiness  requirements.  By  extending  national  visibility  of 
stockage  locations  and  capitalizing  inventories  into  the  Army  Working  Capital 
Fund,  we  reduced  customer  wait  time  by  an  average  of  18.5  percent.  The  SSF 
will  continue  to  reduce  inventory  requirements  and  generate  even  more  savings 
for  The  Army  by  creating  greater  flexibility  for  the  management  of  inventories. 

Another  initiative,  the  National  Maintenance  Program  (NMP),  enhances  weapon 
system  readiness,  reliability,  and  availability  rates  by  bringing  Army  Class  IX 
repair  parts  to  a  single  national  standard.  Ultimately,  increased  reliability  will 
reduce  overall  weapon  system  Operating  and  Support  cost.  Additionally,  the 
NMP  centralizes  the  management  and  control  of  Army  maintenance  activities  for 
components  and  end  items.  NMP  will  produce  appropriately  sized  Army 
maintenance  capacity  that  still  meets  total  maintenance  requirements. 

STRATEGIC  READINESS  REPORTING 

The  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for  FY99  requires  the  Secretary  of 
Defense  to  implement  a  comprehensive  readiness  reporting  system  that 
objectively  measures  readiness  to  support  the  NSS.  The  Army's  Strategic 
Readiness  System  (SRS)  responds  to  and  provides  a  baseline  in  achieving  this 
critical  initiative. 


17- 


201 

SRS  is  a  precision  readiness  measurement  tool  that  provides  Army  leadership 
with  accurate,  objective,  predictive,  and  actionable  readiness  information  to 
dramatically  enhance  resource  management  toward  one  end  -  strategic 
readiness  to  defend  the  United  States.  The  Army  Scorecard  -  a  product  of  SRS 
-  will  integrate  readiness  data  from  the  business  arena  and  the  operating, 
generating,  and  sustaining  forces  of  both  the  Active  and  Reserve  Component. 
Army  Scorecard  methodology  focuses  on  four  critical  areas:  Peop/e  -  investing 
in  Soldiers  and  their  families;  Readiness  -  maintaining  the  support  capability  to 
the  Combatant  Commanders'  operational  requirements;  Transformation  - 
transforming  The  Army  into  the  Objective  Force;  and  application  of  sound 
business  practices. 

SRS  markedly  improves  how  we  measure  readiness.  It  gathers  timely 
information  with  precision  and  expands  the  scope  of  the  data  considered.  We 
are  further  developing  this  system  to  leverage  leading  indicators  and  predict 
trends  -  solving  problems  that  affect  readiness  before  they  become  problems, 
from  well-being  to  weapons  platforms.  SRS  will  help  enable  The  Army  preserve 
readiness  to  support  Combatant  Commanders,  invest  in  Soldiers  and  their 
families,  identify  and  adopt  sound  business  practices,  and  transform  The  Army  to 
the  Objective  Force. 

INSTALLATIONS 

Army  installations  are  our  Nation's  power  projection  platforms,  and  they  provide 
critical  training  support  to  The  Army  and  other  members  of  the  joint  team. 
Additionally,  Soldiers,  families,  and  civilians  live  and  work  on  Army  installations. 
The  quality  of  our  infrastructure  directly  affects  the  readiness  of  The  Army  and 
the  well-being  of  our  Soldiers,  families,  and  civilians. 

The  Army  has  traditionally  accepted  substantial  risk  in  infrastructure  to  maintain 
its  current  warfighting  readiness.  However,  a  decade  of  chronic  under  funding 
has  led  to  a  condition  in  which  over  50  percent  of  our  facilities  and  infrastructure 
are  in  such  poor  condition  that  commanders  rated  them  as  "adversely  affecting 
mission  requirements."  Our  facilities  maintenance  must  improve.  Over  the  past 
two  years,  with  the  help  of  the  Administration  and  Congress,  The  Army  has 
begun  to  rectify  this  situation  with  significant  increases  in  funding  and  innovative 
business  practices.  These  efforts  have  been  dramatically  successful  as  we 
continue  to  correct  a  problem  that  was  10  years  in  the  making.  Thus,  in  an  effort 
to  prevent  future  degradation  of  our  facilities,  The  Army  has  increased  its  funding 
for  facilities  sustainment  to  93  percent  of  requirement  beginning  in  FY04. 

TRANSFORIVIATION  OF  INSTALLATION  MANAGEIVIENT  (TIM) 

Recognizing  the  requirement  to  enhance  support  to  commanders,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Army  directed  the  reorganization  of  The  Army's  management  structure. 
On  October  1 ,  2002.  The  Army  placed  the  management  of  Army  installations 


18- 


202 

under  the  Installation  Management  Agency  (IMA).  IMA  is  a  new  field-operating 
agency  of  the  Assistant  Chief  of  Staff  for  Installation  Management  (ACSIM).  Its 
mission  is  to  provide  equitable,  efficient,  and  effective  management  of  Army 
installations  worldwide  to  support  readiness;  enable  the  well-being  of  Soldiers, 
civilians  and  family  members;  improve  infrastructure;  and  preserve  the 
environment.  This  new  management  approach  eliminates  the  migration  of  base 
operations  funds  to  other  operational  accounts  below  the  HQDA  level.  It  also 
enables  the  development  of  multi-functional  installations  to  support  evolving  force 
structure  and  Army  Transformation  needs.  The  Army  is  poised  to  capitalize  on 
opportunities  TIM  gives  us  to  provide  excellence  in  installations. 

Two  programs  that  significantly  increase  the  well-being  of  our  Soldiers  and  their 
families  are  the  Barracks  and  the  Family  Housing  programs.  The  Army 
established  the  Barracks  Upgrade  Program  (BUP)  in  the  late  1990's  to  improve 
single  Soldiers'  housing  conditions.  Through  2002,  we  have  upgraded  or  funded- 
for-upgrade  70  percent  of  our  permanent  party  barracks  to  Soldier  suites  that 
consist  of  two  single  bedrooms  with  a  shared  bath  and  common  area.  The  Army 
will  continue  the  BUP  until  all